Analog, Digital, and the Sublime (Edward Burtynsky)

Sparky · Aug 7, 2005

mrcallow said:
I would say that it is pretty gosh darn good, but you weren't asking me.

I feel compelled to ask if there isn't a bit of trolling in Bjorke's original post. Why mention digital and why get upset when that portion of the post is addressed?

I wouldn't say there's ANY trolling it Bjorke's post. I thought it was an interesting question - and it got me googling previously forgotten information on philosophy of aesthetics of the 1700s a la comments re: JMW Turner, et.al. - however everyone here got chose to basically IGNORE the meat of his post (uncomfortable with the question? Unknowledgable?? I dunno) and insteand jump all over the aside that was tacked onto the end - which I think he included to suggest that digital may have some place in traditional printmaking - and that it's really not soooo awful if kept with an eye to maintaining traditional standards of reproduction - and that many intelligent and talented people perhaps DO exercise this without falling into any of the trap of what's so abhorrent about digital and why we have this website in the first place.

At any rate - having said THAT - I'd LIKE to steer this conversation BACK to his original question. My own two cents might be simply that his subject matter, I think, is quite amenable to such discussions - owing to it's awesome scale. But I think that to pay attention to issues of the 'sublime' in the work would be to ignore what is important to the work. I think this is initially what draws one in. But to really appreciate the work that some knowledge of the work of smithson, baltz and then yes, perhaps gursky and others, is in order.

So my answer then, would be "superficially yes, but structurally and semantically perhaps not".

bjorke · Aug 12, 2005

...crickets...

Jim Chinn · Aug 13, 2005

having not seen the prints in person, I feel that the subject matter is best presented in a large display. These are subjects that in reality are of a massive scale. If you have ever been to places like this, natural or manmade, you understand how overwhelming the experience can be. I think the size of the prints is an intention to give the viewer that sense of scale.

c6h6o3 · Aug 13, 2005

bjorke said:
(Tangential: my pal Chris Jordan definitely does use an 8x10+PS, and is enjoying much fine-arts success at the moment)

Much of Chris Jordan's work seems derivitave of Ed's Urban Mines pictures. Are they acquaintances?

Bob Carnie · Aug 13, 2005

As c6h603 points out I was suprised at the similaritys of Chris Jordans work and Eds.

bjorke · Aug 13, 2005

c6h6o3 said:
Are they acquaintances?

Good question! It never occured to me actually, I will ask him.

If you saw the NY Times article on 24 July, the dis-similarities are also evident when you see the reproductions inside the paper -- printed many inches across since that was the only way to begin to approach them. Like Ed, Gursky, Hoffer, Polidori, Wagner, et al, Chris's work is involved with scale and detail. Unlike Ed's mines, Chris's junk is more ordered. Like Ed, Chris doesn't try to assert a particular notion about whether this is good or bad but it unquestionably is, and we are left in awe of the sheer physical existence of these things to reveal is to confront and to challenges us the viewers to come to grips with the scale of global corporate capitalism. This he certainly shares with Ed & Gursky & a few other prominent LFers, such as Michael Wolf.

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 13, 2005

I don't buy the alleged political neutrality. If you believe that industry is progress, you don't photograph junkyards, and I'm not willing to believe that Burtynsky is so naive as to have invested so much in building a body of work based on patterns and pretty colors. Even if the photographer's stated stance is neutral, that is not the stance of the work. The stated position is just the standard Realist disclaimer.

Sparky · Aug 13, 2005

David A. Goldfarb said:
I don't buy the alleged political neutrality. If you believe that industry is progress, you don't photograph junkyards, and I'm not willing to believe that Burtynsky is so naive as to have invested so much in building a body of work based on patterns and pretty colors. Even if the photographer's stated stance is neutral, that is not the stance of the work. The stated position is just the standard Realist disclaimer.

I, too, doubt it... "this sort"* of work tends to come from quite a strong critical leftist tradition. I think the work would be meaningless, if not completely trite, without this political layer.

*I very much see this sort of work as the latest progression of a series from R. Smithson & Ed Ruscha -> L. Baltz/E. Gowin -> Bechers (subdued here) -> Jeff Wall & new german photo (gursky et.al. perhaps) -> Burtynsky (neutered).

bjorke · Aug 14, 2005

If you believe that industry is progress, you don't photograph junkyards

Why not? Junkyards are as much a part of the broad industrial process as any other.

When Gursky came to SFMOMA last year, he commented on the fact that he visited the president of K-Mart (Wal-Mart?) and that a print of "99 Cent" was there on this retail executive's wall.

To photograph junkyards is to deny the value of industrial progress? Are you saying that everyone who photographed, say, during WWII or Vietnam or Iraq is by definition opposed to those conflicts? I'm sure it would come as a surprise to many of them. I definitely believe one can look at the broad spectacle of consumer culture and use it as a basis for additional art whether repelled by it or enraptured. Or preferably both.

KB

(Who btw engineered the ChemSources database that identifies repurposing toxic/hazardous wastes from some industries into source materials for other industries. That could not have been done if someone didn't first go and look at what was being thrown away (expensively buried in deep holes somewhere in Arkansas))

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 14, 2005

"99-cent" is probably my favorite Gursky image. Still, I don't think you can look at it without regarding the phenomenon it depicts in a negative, if postmodern-whimsical, light. If the president of a discount store displays a copy in his office and Gursky remarks upon it, the point seems to be that the executive just doesn't get the irony and is even more stupid and evil than we thought.

I don't think there is anything so whimsical about Burtynsky's work. Indeed junkyards are part of the industrial process, but they are not the part that industry wants particularly to advertise. By exposing the enormity of the junkyard, he is working against the public image and PR agenda of industry and rendering a critique of consumer society.

Regarding war photography--the analogy is incomplete. In either the case of war or industrial photography, one can photograph in a heroic iconic tradition (consider Sexton's industrial photographs from _Places of Power_ or Rosenthal's flag raising over Iwo Jima), or one can photograph the negative aspects of war as a way of opposing it as one can photograph a junkyard.

Yes, one can use consumer culture as a basis for additional art, but it will unquestionably express some political values one way or the other, and I don't think the judgment is that obscure in this particular case.

jd callow · Aug 14, 2005

Sparky said:
I, too, doubt it... "this sort"* of work tends to come from quite a strong critical leftist tradition. I think the work would be meaningless, if not completely trite, without this political layer.

Political commentary is there, but that isn't necessarily what makes the picture.

It may be trite or at least pedestrian and that is when these types of images are at their best.

Photographs of mammoth steel wrecks or cavernous quarries shot on big sheets of film and printed large will be impressive and have the potential to convey a meaningful message. Both are states in a cycle of industrial life. Every bit as a valid as an image of workers on a steel super structure 80 stories up or some other image that exalts in the ingenuity or heroics of man and industry.

For me these images rely too much on the presentation or at least when the newness and size is removed they are far less compelling. Images of the everyday are by definition trite, but have, for me, far more intrinsic value. The everyday shots of a grocery store, a new car lot or even a parking lot represent valid states in the life cycle, and are things we take for granted. The artist has won a major victory if the image compels you to see these things in a different light.

At the end of the day there is always a message and it is often political. Is one message better than another? Is it ok to depict the wealth required for mass consumption, but not ok or in someway twisted to depict the results of that consumption?

c6h6o3 · Aug 14, 2005

David A. Goldfarb said:
Yes, one can use consumer culture as a basis for additional art, but it will unquestionably express some political values one way or the other...

Is it the art that is unquestionably expressing the political values, or the life's experiences of the viewer? I can see diametrically opposed interpretations of this type of work coming from different viewers.

jd callow · Aug 14, 2005

That assumes benign intent on the photographer, which may be the case, or that the photographer failed at the message they were trying to convey.

bjorke · Aug 14, 2005

c6h6o3 said:
Is it the art that is unquestionably expressing the political values, or the life's experiences of the viewer? I can see diametrically opposed interpretations of this type of work coming from different viewers.

Thank you, that is exactly my point.

I disagree with callow's assertion that the artist has failed to convey their message if viewers come to varying conclusions. After all, the most compelling messages are often questions.

If anything, images that have only one possible valid interpretation are usually the least interesting. Eg "Here are Morton and Eugenia at the Grand Canyon" is deeply dull for anyone unrelated to them. Then again, if pried-open to look under the hood at the "invalid" interpretations, even such images can start to reveal depth, from the faded "Dukakis" pin on Morton's lapel (lapel? in the woods? what was he thinking?) to the nagging suspicion that Eugenia has been crying (in sadness, joy, or wincing from the sunlight?). We wonder why they pose next to the "Grand Canyon" sign, with a simplified drawing of the canyon, when the actual natural splendor is only a few yards away.

Engaging these ambiguities full-on is imo the best work of a photographer.

jd callow · Aug 14, 2005

Bjorke,
I think you missed my point. I was keeping it strictly to Sparky's point. If the message is political as in "see how bad industrialization is" and the viewer thinks "wow, industrialization is great" then the artist's message fails.

If in fact the artist was being benign (not making a political statement, but simply making an observation) and viewers draw the same conclusion as above or differing ones, but are moved to think or evaluate the subject on the artists terms or by the artists presentation of the subject, then the work is probably successful and probably meets a the artists goal.

Certainly, an artist can have many intents and one is not inherently better than the next. Implementation of that intent can often be the determining factor as to whether or not the artist was successful or not. Whether he/she is posing questions, making a political commentary, trying to replicate an emotion or some other intent, success can be measured by the artist or by the viewer based upon their personal reaction.

The example you give, coupled with the image you've posted leaves me with questions as well.

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 14, 2005

I wouldn't reduce the work to its political content, but I wouldn't deny it either. The political content is part of its complexity.

bjorke · Aug 14, 2005

mrcallow said:
I think you missed my point.

Perfectly comfortable with that in fact it fits well with my theme of varying interpretations (what was it Sontag said about photography, that it "confounds intention"?)

mrcallow said:
I was keeping it strictly to Sparky's point...

If in fact the artist was being benign (not making a political statement, but simply making an observation) and viewers draw the same conclusion as above or differing ones, but are moved to think or evaluate the subject on the artists terms or by the artists presentation of the subject, then the work is probably successful and probably meets a the artists goal.

Yup, I think we are in agreement

mrcallow said:
The example you give, coupled with the image you've posted leaves me with questions as well.

It's just a wee riff on intention, meaning, and how much of that evaluation comes from the viewer (and the viewing context). The Winogrand pic is one I grabbed at random as indicative of photos that gain a large part of their value from their ability to derail tidy interpretation.

Analog, Digital, and the Sublime (Edward Burtynsky)

Sparky

bjorke

Jim Chinn

c6h6o3

Bob Carnie

bjorke

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Sparky

bjorke

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

jd callow

Moderator

c6h6o3

jd callow

Moderator

bjorke

jd callow

Moderator

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

bjorke

Analog, Digital, and the Sublime (Edward Burtynsky)

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency