Jeff Wall -- "I work in film..."

ic-racer · Jun 26, 2012

Like him or not, check out this recent (2011 or 2012) youtube clip of Jeff Wall introducing a solo exhibition of his work.

I work with film (pause). I feel film is an amazing technology, it's probably the most powerful means of capturing an image. So the hurry to abandon it [film] is I think something people are going to regret... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVv6GSpPZ_o

CGW · Jun 26, 2012

Amen. Very fond of his work. So was the buyer of this Wall piece:

http://www.canphoto.net/jeff-wall-photo-sells-3-6-million/

The Photography Room · Jun 26, 2012

Thanks for this

ajmiller · Jun 27, 2012

I liked this at the end:-
"And probably what it means is anyone with a telephone can make a great photograph - the problem with that is - can you make a second one?".

Thanks for the link.

F/1.4 · Jun 27, 2012

Also Fond of Jeff Wall's work, great post!

Newt_on_Swings · Jun 27, 2012

I liked that video, thanks!

amsp · Jun 27, 2012

Nice video, thanks for sharing.

Vanishing Point Ent. · Jul 8, 2012

" Film is NOT a Four-Letter Word !"

You may quote me; just attribute it.

sasah zib · Nov 12, 2021

Jeff Wall and Gregory Crewdson trace early influences [apr 2021]
[long: 40+ minutes ]

==
sidebar: Dogme 95 was a filmmaking movement started in 1995 by the Danish directors Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg, who created the "Dogme 95 Manifesto" and the "Vows of Chastity" (Danish: kyskhedsløfter). These were rules to create films based on the traditional values of story, acting, and theme, and excluding the use of elaborate special effects or technology. It was supposedly created as an attempt to "take back power for the directors as artists", as opposed to the studio.
[solely as reference]

Andrew O'Neill · Nov 12, 2021

Yay a local boy!
I've always liked his work. A friend of mine absolutely hates it. That's because he doesn't get it...and he's jealous ....I have to admit I have been out of touch with his work recently, though... Thanks for the link. Is he still using film??

Paul Howell · Nov 12, 2021

And what does this now 10 year old Tube clip have to do with Large Format Photography?

Andrew O'Neill · Nov 12, 2021

Paul Howell said:
And what does this now 10 year old Tube clip have to do with Large Format Photography?

He does/did his work in large format...but maybe better suited in the Photographer forum...

pbromaghin · Nov 12, 2021

He said he doesn't take pictures. What does he mean?

MattKing · Nov 12, 2021

He constructs pictures.
He is more like a film director than a still photographer.
Everything is staged.
And then he prints huge, backlit transparencies - they are wall size.
I like lots of his work. This is one of my favourites:

faberryman · Nov 12, 2021

ajmiller said:
I liked this at the end:-
"And probably what it means is anyone with a telephone can make a great photograph - the problem with that is - can you make a second one?".
.

The question of "can you make a second one" applies equally to someone with a film camera, a digital camera, and a phone.

Andrew O'Neill · Nov 12, 2021

He sets up his scenes from scratch. He's like a set decorator, and choreographer...

removed account4 · Nov 12, 2021

here's another interview with him, from a few days ago on PBS
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/h...ures-duplicate-magic-of-large-scale-paintings

DREW WILEY · Nov 12, 2021

Well, I'm certainly no fan of his - just doesn't quite ring true for me; and I don't consider his work as even legitimately photography, but more akin to Hollywood stage production genre . But it is otherwise interesting in its own way, and gives him a specific niche, and one way too expensive for many to mimic. And no, it's not "just film". There's a lot of post-manipulation. I think he's gone MF digital in the meantime, and have heard that his oversized prints are even more disappointing up close than before. At least he's honest about it, because he does not in fact take pictures or even discover them. And that's why he has zero influence on me. I prefer painters using real paint. But I take interest in all kinds of art genre that I'm not involved with personally, and he adds his own variety to the whole.

warden · Nov 12, 2021

I kind of lump Wall and Crewdson in the same big-budget bucket. I have one or two Crewdson books but they have not aged well for me. I've seen Wall's work in galleries but think it presents better in that environment rather than prints. Both interesting guys.

gone · Nov 12, 2021

The pictures are too big. Unless you're doing a mural outdoors, there isn't enough room indoors to get back and see things properly, the eye will just wander. Without a focal point and a strong composition to nail things down, both of which are absent if you stand too close, it won't work right.

Geez Marie, this sort of stuff is Art Basics 101, you know? Besides, who cares what he or any other artist or photographer has to say regarding the work, it has to be able to speak on it's own. Any art you have to explain is a failure (but might sell readily).

Pieter12 · Nov 12, 2021

MattKing said:
He constructs pictures.
He is more like a film director than a still photographer.
Everything is staged.

I don't think that "constructing" pictures makes one any less a still photographer. I consider it more like a still life, but with the addition of people. And not all film directors work with sets and built environments. Some don't even use actors or direct the actors they use. There are many ways to make a photograph, be it a still or motion picture.

On the other hand, I find the genre stilted. I do appreciate Mr Wall's and Mr Crewdson's images (along with many others who construct scenes usually to tell a cinematic-style story) and I include as part of that group Cindy Sherman's later work.

MattKing · Nov 12, 2021

momus said:
The pictures are too big. Unless you're doing a mural outdoors, there isn't enough room indoors to get back and see things properly, the eye will just wander. Without a focal point and a strong composition to nail things down, both of which are absent if you stand too close, it won't work right.

Geez Marie, this sort of stuff is Art Basics 101, you know? Besides, who cares what he or any other artist or photographer has to say regarding the work, it has to be able to speak on it's own. Any art you have to explain is a failure (but might sell readily).

They are really interesting and powerful to see in real life.
And they are full of references to other things, other ideas, even other pieces of (usually visual) art.
And they do speak on their own, although they are often saying quite complex things.
At the same time, many of them have elements akin to street photography - quite amazingly really, given how painstakingly they are put together.
And yes, the big backlit transparencies demand a big room.
His much more current, relatively small silver gelatin black and white work is really different.

Pieter12 · Nov 12, 2021

momus said:
The pictures are too big. Unless you're doing a mural outdoors, there isn't enough room indoors to get back and see things properly, the eye will just wander.

Have you been to a museum or gallery lately, seen the scale of some of the art, both past and present? This is not made to put in your spare bedroom.

MattKing · Nov 12, 2021

Pieter12 said:
This is not made to put in your spare bedroom.

Unless of course this fits with your decor:

Jeff Wall, "The Destroyed Room", 1978
(referencing The Death of Sardanapalus 1827 by Eugène Delacroix)

DREW WILEY · Nov 12, 2021

One reason I seldom go to museums anymore - big for sake of big, too much digital hanky-panky. Just a new herd of lemmings following another lemming which decided to go that direction, as far as I'm concerned. A trend. And I'm speaking from the standpoint of one who does shoot 8x10 color and knows how to enlarge and elegantly present them. And backlit trannies have about all the appeal as a backlit Hamm's beer sign in a skid row dive window. Plus those fluorescent bulbs fade out the piece quite prematurely, and it's very difficult to store or "archive" those big things or even spare transparencies that large.

And now that Cindy Sherman got mentioned in an analogous context, I gravitate far less to her work - just too pretentiously predictable. Once things get too self-consciously artsy, count me out. Well, studio setups mimicking theatrical content are nothing new. Instead of borrowing small still frames of movie footage, Hurrell would replicate a particular movie set in his own studio, or go to the studio itself between filming session, and replicate some now-famous moments in movies with an 8x10 or even 11X14 camera. I've seen a number of those, often printed over six feet wide black and white, and have even discussed these things with a surviving assistant who was directly involved. I've seen equivalent color still from the era too. But everyone knows that it is all Hollywood related. Likewise in this case; it's just that Hollywood migrated to the Northeast. And it is interesting. But I wouldn't personally go out of my way to view it. Great Photorealist real paintings, I would.

Jeff Wall -- "I work in film..."

ic-racer

CGW

The Photography Room

ajmiller

F/1.4

Newt_on_Swings

amsp

Vanishing Point Ent.

sasah zib

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Paul Howell

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

pbromaghin

MattKing

Moderator

faberryman

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

removed account4

DREW WILEY

warden

gone

Pieter12

MattKing

Moderator

Pieter12

MattKing

Moderator

DREW WILEY

Jeff Wall -- "I work in film..."

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency