Genius or insane. What do you think of this guy's work?

[frank]

Get ready to be called shallow, Eric. That was not the politically correct answer, even if you make it clear that it's only your personal opinion.

 

[benjiboy]

It's "the emperors new clothes" school of photography.

 

[removed account4]

https://gabrielacendoya.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/31-de-octubre-2016-pabaiga-olivier-pin-fat/

it seems he is also part of agencie vu
http://www.agencevu.com
http://www.agencevu.com/visa2007/pin_fat/pages/page_28.html

its good he's being represented too !

 

[mynewcolour]

It's "the emperors new clothes" school of photography.

Please explain. If you're going to rubbish the author it's the least you can do.

 

[rwjr]

Here's my take...as I belong to to the alternative photography group on Facebook too I'm seeing lots and I mean lots of this kind of work...trying to think of the British artist who used pissed and shit to make art...well it worked and he sells art for millions...art is what it is and you either go for it or not...when I make a photograph my main concern is do I get ANY kind of reaction..that part is good..
I'm just a little overwhelmed by all these people trying to push boundaries. ..
I'm familiar with alison rossiter and her work
she collected a massive collection of old photo paper . .exposed it and did a series
It worked but to me it's what they teach you in art school . ..good clever novel??
Good to have these discussions
Best Peter

i remember the italian artist piero manzoni & his 1961 work titled " artists sh*t " , it consisted of 90 tin cans each filled with supposedly the artists own feces (1.1 oz ) with labels in italian , english , french & german stating the following " artists sh*t contains 30 gr net freshly preserved produced & tinned in may 1961 " their is debate in the art world as to what is actually in the cans . as for the op(original posters ) question genius or insane ( maybe a little of both ? or neither ? ) i followed the link & kinda liked what i seen - a few images i really liked , interesting & something i'd like to try myself sometime .

 

[Craig75]

I have this book and its surprisingly hard to print like that. I have the fanzine / pamplet he did too and that has a lot more different techniques and styles. Quality photographer

 

[RalphLambrecht]

https://gabrielacendoya.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/31-de-octubre-2016-pabaiga-olivier-pin-fat/

he is desperately trying to be different, yet it only seems to be desperate

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Not at all my aesthetic cup of tea. But happy for him that he's pushing the aesthetic and limits of non-representational photography.

 

[larfe]

I have this book and its surprisingly hard to print like that.

I'm afraid you're wrong on that point.

His 'method' is to intentionally damage his rolls of film before or during the developing stage, he does not use exotic printing methods other than pseudo-solarization/sabatier.

 

[faberryman]

Doesn't do much for me.

 

[removedacct1]

I’m not surprised to see there are some dismissive remarks aimed at this person’s work, given the oft-narrow stylistic scope of work this community produces. Dismayed, but not surprised.
I'm curious: where do you draw the line between Gem and Junk? Pinhole imagery? Photograms? Kirlian photography? X-ray images? Collage? Why so quick to judge work that doesn't conform to Pictorial Standards?

you can't make photographs or paintings or sculptures or whatever
just for making them?

Good lord, why would anyone make stuff if the goal isn't to make money??!! (*sarcasm*)

 

[JensH]

Hi,

sometimes my images look like those, if 80 year old film was stored badly - I just trash them.
In other words, I don't like it.

Best
Jens

 

[Ces1um]

These photos aren't to my taste, but then again, they don't have to be.

 

[removed account4]

I'm afraid you're wrong on that point.

His 'method' is to intentionally damage his rolls of film before or during the developing stage, he does not use exotic printing methods other than pseudo-solarization/sabatier.

hi larfe

sorry to ask, and i hope you don't take my remarks wrong,
but have you ever made prints using the methods he uses ?
it is anything but easy ...
i've done things similar but different ( for 30 years ), and it isn't as easy as using a
negative and printing it conventionally with split filter printing and / or buring
and dodging or using exotic developers &c ...
it takes effort and practice like everything in life worth doing
just because it looks like its "nothing hard" and a "4 year old can do "
( like people would say about a jackson pollock painting ) i would imagine
if most people on this website attempted to do that sort of work they would go back
to what they are comfortable with ...

 

[larfe]

hi larfe

sorry to ask, and i hope you don't take my remarks wrong,
but have you ever made prints using the methods he uses ?
it is anything but easy ...
i've done things similar but different, and it isn't as easy as using a
negative and printing it conventionally with split filter printing and / or buring
and dodging or using exotic developers &c ...
it takes effort and practice like everything in life worth doing
just because it looks like its "nothing hard" and a "4 year old can do "
( like people would say about a jackson pollock painting ) i would imagine
if most people on this website attempted to do that sort of work they would go back
to what they are comfortable with ...

Hi John,

there is nothing special in his printing method whatsoever, except for the sabatier effect. It's all done at the film developing stage or before (damaged film).
And yes I have tried it myself indeed, although with different results probably similar to your experience. I didn't think it was particularly hard...

 

[removed account4]

There's nothing right or wrong, insane or genius about this work. You either like it or you don't.

What does annoy me, however, is when someone claims this kind of thing "isn't as easy as using a
negative and printing it conventionally with split filter printing and / or buring
and dodging...".

What nonsense. Making great conventional prints from conventional negatives demands as much creativity and craft/skill as making non-representational prints. It's just different, not easier.

michael

not really nonsense
what annoys me is someone claiming after dabbling using trying
another methodolgy that there is nothing to it ..
( like somenoe claiming after a month using xyz developer they are an expert )
yes, they are different and they are both hard, that is my poorly stated point
the difference is that with his negatives he had to invent what the subject was
with a representational negative, that is already done for the printer...
if i could suggest .. take a wide sheet of mylar or similar substrate
tape it to your shoe and drag it like you have drop foot, so it gets all scratched up
then after a week or few days, un tape it from your shoe and put it in your enlarger
and interpret it .. its not as easy as printing a negative whose subject has already been
interpreted as you were depressing the shutter.

 

[larfe]

mmm, having done both I'm with michael on that one.

 

[removed account4]

i'd like to see your results ...

 

[faberryman]

...the difference is that with his negatives he had to invent what the subject was...

Only if he wanted to make a non-representational image representational.

 

[removed account4]

Only if he wanted to make a non-representational image representational.

why would he have to do that ?
he interpreted the negatives to make the prints
isn't that all that is needed with photographic technique ?

nothing's real anyways, is it ?

 

[Craig75]

Hi John,

there is nothing special in his printing method whatsoever, except for the sabatier effect. It's all done at the film developing stage or before (damaged film).
And yes I have tried it myself indeed, although with different results probably similar to your experience. I didn't think it was particularly hard...

No its not damaged film. Its expired film and expired paper that i think he found in eastern europe where he was doing a month long residency at a gallery..

So you did it too but got different results...like i say not so easy.

 

[Craig75]

michael

not really nonsense
what annoys me is someone claiming after dabbling using trying
another methodolgy that there is nothing to it ..
yes, they are different and they are both hard, that is my poorly stated point
the difference is that with his negatives he had to invent what the subject was
with a representational negative, that is already done for the printer...
if i could suggest .. take a wide sheet of mylar or similar substrate
tape it to your shoe and drag it like you have drop foot, so it gets all scratched up
then after a week or few days, un tape it from your shoe and put it in your enlarger
and interpret it .. its not as easy as printing a negative whose subject has already been
interpreted as you were depressing the shutter.

They are actually just street shots around Vilnius i think. There are photos of fields of flowers, tower blocks, corridors etc but the materials are behaving so erratically the images shift from semi realistic to almost pure abstraction.

There's nothing right or wrong, insane or genius about this work. You either like it or you don't.

What does annoy me, however, is when someone claims this kind of thing "isn't as easy as using a
negative and printing it conventionally with split filter printing and / or buring
and dodging...".

What nonsense. Making great conventional prints from conventional negatives demands as much creativity and craft/skill as making non-representational prints. It's just different, not easier.

It does indeed and when done by someone deeply skilled it looks amazing.

I always remember at the end of elements by barry thornton - hes spent 200 very engaging pages teaching you how to create works just like you describe - and then says but dont shoot like me. Quite the challenge!

 

[larfe]

No its not damaged film. Its expired film and expired paper that i think he found in eastern europe where he was doing a month long residency at a gallery..

So you did it too but got different results...like i say not so easy.

Good grief, sounds like you're almost feeling sorry for the guy.

Do your research better, yes he was given some 120 rolls of film dating back from the soviet times by the kaunas gallery. These particular negs turned out to have nothing on them and resulted in the 'images' that look like scrambled TV screens.

It is well known that he has been using intentionally damaged film from his early days, he has said so in several interviews. Such is the case also in his zine that you mentioned earlier.

 

[Craig75]

Good grief, sounds like you're almost feeling sorry for the guy.

Do your research better, yes he was given some 120 rolls of film dating back from the soviet times by the kaunas gallery. These particular negs turned out to have nothing on them and resulted in the 'images' that look like scrambled TV screens.

It is well known that he has been using intentionally damaged film from his early days, he has said so in several interviews. Such is the case also in his zine that you mentioned earlier.

The damaged polaroids arent like work in pagabia. Its very difficult to see how the negatives have been intentially damaged in pagabia.

Its also quite easy to see whats being photographed in pagabia in most cases so not sure how they came put blank.

Good grief, sounds like you're almost feeling sorry for the guy

Not sure what thats supposed to mean but whatever.