Confrontation

Boy, it's hard to resist the temptation to do a Richard Serra info dump (I love his work and ... and ... [stopping myself]) ...

I will just say that I think Lynn has done him justice.

Setting Serra aside, the picture as picture feels a little too toned, to me, and I'm not happy with the ceiling tiles being so insistent to the eye. But the central arrangement of man-and-sculpture is true to its subject.

I, too, would prefer to largely crop out the ceiling as it would concentrate the image on the sculpture and man, and if the top inch or so of the sculpture/installation was cropped out too it would make it more mysterious. As it is, I find it a rather straight "record shot", which adds only a little extra something to the artwork itself. To be fair, this is a common issue with shots of artwork.

"I find it a rather straight "record shot" "

I agree that "this is a common issue with shots of artwork," (as it should be). And I think Lynn has achieved that by, for example, giving just a sliver of the far right side of the sculpture, and letting the sculpture "own" the picture (as opposed to the man).

What I think Lynn has added is the feeling of an unsuspecting subject being lured into the mouth of the dragon. I think that's achieved by the man's somewhat hesitant but absorbed attitude, and that Lynn has not allowed us to see where the "tunnel" is leading him to. [To do what I said I wouldn't in my first post, Serra's works aren't meant to be things you look "at."]

Agreed, it needs a person to make it interesting: never had a doubt about that.

The design of the ceiling relates quite well to the geometry of the Serra piece. I love how the three wide ceiling stripes relate to the three sculpted blocks of the Serra. Including the ceiling in this way helps give the sense of occupied space, and scale, so vital to Serra's environmental sculptures.

As one not familiar wit Serra's work, the image pulled me in simply by the power I perceived that the walls have in comparison with the man.

there's certainly something sinister going on. to me it's the leftmost wall closing in on, and about to crush, the unsuspecting prey. not sure the tone is wrong though. a slightly warmer tone gives the beast a more organic presence.

Richard Serra's Every Which Way, but what is the man looking at ? there is nothing on the walls of this work to look at, it's the structure of the three parallel blocks that holds the viewer. The man does give interest and a meaning to this image and is the reason it's being discussed, not the artwork. Why so much noise on the image ? which adds nothing to this capture.

On the contrary, it seems to me to add a character that would not be there with an image with no texture.

I’m approaching this image from two directions. First, to my eyes this is a very strong composition due to the way the artist has presented both the angles and tones here (and by artist I mean the photographer). I find the ceiling to be an essential element in that composition—it’s an important counter-balance to the strong verticals, and the rows of tiles provide a masterful echo to the strong diagonal where floor meets sculpture, and provide a nice foil to the opposite diagonal where sculpture meets wall. The medium tones of the dark ceiling tiles also seem essential for bringing a sense of completeness to the top of the image by reprising the medium tones of the foreground floor. Framing the photo as the artist has, with light strips on the sides included along with the floor and ceiling, is another masterful touch—it turns the massive dark forms into an island. This backdrop of angular darks and lights could stand well as an abstract image in its own right, but the frosting on the cake is that small figure in the center—the protagonist gives a strong center of interest to the image, and the light tones of the face set against the darks of the sculpture and suit are beautifully rendered to bring out that contrast between the organic form and the very inorganic surroundings.

The second direction I try to view from is that of the artist’s objectives as I interpret them from the title: “Confrontation.” That is very definitely the sense I read from the image, which makes me very interested in how that sense has been conveyed so successfully. I think one of the key elements is the presentation of the sculpture as an island of dark, surrounded by the medium to light tones of the room. Had it not been treated as an island, there wouldn’t have been a confrontation here at all—we would have gone straight to “defeated” because the small figure would have been engulfed by a boundless sea of dark. And here, too, the ceiling tiles are essential: the ceiling is important for evening out the odds enough for the image to read as a confrontation instead of a defeat, and the tile rows are essential for defining and providing interest in the ceiling. I also think that the choice of the grainy texture in processing strongly supports the objective—confrontations aren’t well represented by silky smooth textures. Had the artist envisioned a different objective, they might well have selected a different crop and a different strategy for post-processing, but to my eyes the artist’s choices support the title very, very effectively.

I like this image a lot, and I think the only change I might like to see here would be to darken the tonal gradient of the floor as it recedes on the far left and far right so that the change in tone from floor to wall becomes more distinct; this might bring those angles into play, too. It certainly would not be an important change, and it's one that would likely go unnoticed, but it might be fun to play with.

I find Leslie's post to be a veritable model for the kind of discussion that would be productive here.
BRAVO

The challenge with this type image is always to determine if I am intended to experience the imaged art, or if the image itself is my subject for consideration. In my world, the building that contains art should provide, to the extent feasible, negative and neutral space in which the art can be judged on its own merits. This is particularly true of spaces intended to receive a variety of changing exhibitions. Some display spaces become integral to the items being displayed, such as at the Louvre, the old Temporary Contempory in LA, etc. In this case, I don't have an immediate impression that the space is integral to the art, but it certainly forms a container. It feels to me rather like happenstance, perhaps even no more than an expedient.

Even so, I find myself strongly influenced by Leslie's post. As an Architect, I can't help feeling a sense of disappointment that the venue for this work of sculpture feels more like a constraint than an integral element. Experientially, I feel the sculpture would be just as strong in a large, high-ceilinged room, or even outside. I don't believe the constraints of the room add meaning to the sculpture. Inclusion of the floor, ceiling, and walls in this image does provide context, and thereby assist in understanding the exhibition. However, I don't think they really help the image as "art", just as they seem to have little bearing on the experiential quality of the sculpture itself. The man is essential to this image in providing scale and a sense of human engagement with the art. But, the viewer of this photo is external to the experience being portrayed. I think a more powerful image would take the POV of a person engaging with the sculpture directly. This would make a more powerful photo in emphasizing the mass, forms, and perspectives available within the sculpture, rather than making the sculpture an object within a room. I think I would like to see a UWA image, perhaps from near floor level, just at the entry to the void between slabs. I like the idea of the photo being enveloped within the sculpture, just as visitors were clearly intended by the artist to be enveloped and engaged.

David wrote: "I can't help feeling a sense of disappointment that the venue for this work of sculpture feels more like a constraint than an integral element."

Do you think maybe (and this is purely speculation) Lynn wanted to raise that issue by pointedly including the ceiling tiles? Making lemonade out of lemons?

Serra would agree with you emphatically when you write: "the building that contains art should provide, to the extent feasible, negative and neutral space." He wanted surrounding walls that were "perfect and totally neutral [in color and texture]. ... Any material texture ... can be a serious problem." He also dreamed of all natural light, but knew that wasn't going to happen inside a museum.

I don't know what Lynn intended. I do know what I see. I see a photo of a sculpture. I don't see what Serra said about his

work. It's a photo that I think nicely pairs the sculpture with its surroundings. Whether Serra would have approved of this

environment is interesting on academic terms, not IMO on photographic terms. Lynn likely did not have the opportunity to

determine the space in which this sculpture was placed. She did have choices in terms of what to include in the shot, and

we can see the choices she made by looking at the photo more than by wondering about Serra's exhibition preferences.

By the way, I find the inclusion of the man relatively uninteresting as I do the title of the photo. Other than his being

obviously a human being, I get no sense of expression or gesture from his presence. He's just not adding anything for

me. It seems a pretty straightforward documentary photo of this piece. I think of the photo more as a record than art. It

reminds me of how much I love Serra's work, especially when I'm immersed in it. So it's more of a reminder to me than an

experience in its own right.

JDM - Very well said. I wish I had the kind of expertise that seems necessary for writing such a critique.

Fred - I'm not sure about your take on the man in the photograph. To me, the position of his head may indicate nothing more than the mere fact of his gazing at the sculpture. Yet, his long sleeves seem to confirm that each of his hands is tightly at his sides, which may confirm that he is responding emotionally to the sculpture's comparatively larger size and its proximity.

Julie, I guess my point is agreement with others that this is an effective documentary photograph illustrating this particular installation. Whatever emotional impact it has on me is derived from my response to the documented conditions, rather that to any aesthetic impact the image, per se, might have, based on its composition, choice of perspective, positive vs. negative space, color vs. black and white, etc. For better or worse, my training and profession make me acutely sensitive to the conditions illustrated, where the illustration itself is less compelling.

David, I hope you aren't self-censoring in the interest of conformity. You seem to be apologizing for what makes your posts so valuable (that you are an architect).

I think that the widest diversity of responses -- whatever the picture makes you think -- from the greatest diversity of respondents is of the greatest value to Lynn. She will decide for herself which she finds to be valid or invalid according to her intent.

A wide diversity is not only of great value to each of us (we are different!), it should, I hope, prompt more people to jump in with their own diverse responses. But a push for conformity of response, or intolerance of diversity discourages anybody new and different from joining in.

Saw this one a bit late, but these comments are incited by its interesting subject matter and reaction with the previous interesting critiques.

While the ceiling tile alignment may suggest hope of an escape (given the parallel and open design) from the apparent constriction faced by the human subject within this (apparent) sculpture, the feeling of containment or "cul de sac", which seems to me to be the purpose of the photographer in making the image (although, I should add that we usually impart to another's image our own feelings or past experience), I think that the exclusion of the ceiling would convey that more strongly.

I feel it is a good image yet one that might convey more if treated more minimally, perhaps benefitting from the apparent perspective distortions of a wide angle lens or even the surgical coldness and rigid delineation and foreshortening possible with a telephoto (should that be possible, spatially), but minimising the overall physical elements that apparently confront the subject. Here he looks a bit like someone reading the telephone book like records of lost persons and heroes on a war memorial.