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

[MattKing]

People like this Jeff Wall fellow really need to be discussed elsewhere.

I don't know why we wouldn't want to discuss artists who employ photographic techniques and materials as part of their art? Particularly those who were major users of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome transmission materials (in their heyday).
Does your desire for exclusion include his more recent silver gelatin black and white print work?

 

[DREW WILEY]

The photographic part of it is basically superficial, a mere veneer. It's another art form entirely. I don't even consider him a photographer. You're free to have your own opinion, Matt. I'm not immune to discussing him, and and am not even trying to undermine him. It's just something else, and part of the trend steadily eroding away what photography could, and still can. uniquely do. Cyberspace and digital manipulation is a tapeworm steadily sucking the life out of what the eyes were meant to do viewing the real world. Pity. The real world is just so much more beautiful and complex.Why fake it? I don't want to see more and more giant still frame equivalents to moments in digitized movies. Leave that kind of thing for teenagers with their popcorn.

Some of his older work, less choreographed, reminds of the kind of thing I've seen over and over and over again from the same era. Nothing unique or special there. Maybe people in that part of the world just don't know how much of that same kind of thing was being done here on the West Coast, and visa versa. Light boxes and giant trannies, no - you go to the cosmetics section of a Department Store for that. Yecch ! Now programmable digital billboards do that kind of thing when it needs to be really big.

I specialized in Cibachrome over most of its duration. It can be used tastefully. But advertising stye, over the top? C'mon. That's anathema.

 

[Pieter12]

The photographic part of it is basically superficial, a mere veneer.

All photography is superficial. Well, maybe not X-Rays.

 

[removed account4]

It's a brave new world. Things have gone far beyond just studio production setups prior to the shot. Now there are people like Gursky that move entire elements around, or subtract and add all kinds of things digitally afterwards. Then for some reason, some of these folks have the connections and finances to present the prints really big. Of course, it's hard to display something like that without a lot of abusive UV light being involved, so you can't expect them to last a long time. But people who buy that kind of thing can also afford a $50,000 party dress they wear only once. Conspicuous consumption.

And if that kind of thing is a museum rage today, within a decade every junior high kid will know how to do it fifty times cheaper, and down the line, whoever did it first will be forgotten. The digital world has a very short memory. But great paintings tend to be prized for centuries; because they don't depends on technology that makes itself obsolete every few years.

People like this Jeff Wall fellow really need to be discussed elsewhere. Once one is on that slippery slope, they're neither fish nor fowl, neither photographer nor painter. Glad he found his niche, but it ain't mine!

Im really sorry to tell you this DREW .. but its been a brave new world since the 1790s,
Le Point de vue du Gras is not permanent, does it matter ? I don't really think Wall's collectors are uninformed..

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Just surface and light". Yeah, I've heard that more than once. What a boring attitude. I'd hate to see an X-ray of those heads. At least the cobwebs inside of mine involve real spiders.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe Jeff Wall was thinking of Drew when he put together "Monologue" in 2013

 

[Pieter12]

"Just surface and light". Yeah, I've heard that more than once. What a boring attitude. I'd hate to see an X-ray of those heads. At least the cobwebs inside of mine involve real spiders.

So you photograph more than that? I would love to see.

 

[markjwyatt]

So you photograph more than that? I would love to see.

You would have to move this to the philosophy section to see more than that, but i think a lot of photography is more than that.

 

[Pieter12]

You would have to move this to the philosophy section to see more than that, but i think a lot of photography is more than that.

I may contemplate and interpret a photograph, but it is just colors or black and white on a surface, and a record of a surface. If it stimulates the production of the proper endorphins then I like it. But in itself it is just a 2-dimensional record of light. No philosophy necessary.

 

[Arthurwg]

Im really sorry to tell you this DREW .. but its been a brave new world since the 1790s,
Le Point de vue du Gras is not permanent, does it matter ? I don't really think Wall's collectors are uninformed..

I've often thought that due du Gras is the best photograph ever made. I still get chills when I look at it. As for Wall's collectors, there's lot of pure crap out there that commands staggering prices while much great stuff goes begging. There's no accounting for bad taste.

 

[markjwyatt]

I may contemplate and interpret a photograph, but it is just colors or black and white on a surface, and a record of a surface. If it stimulates the production of the proper endorphins then I like it. But in itself it is just a 2-dimensional record of light. No philosophy necessary.

Surfaces do not stimulate the production of endoirphins. People do. But I understand your point. In the end it is an interpretation (whether consious, subconcious, etc.) that produces those endorphins, that is my only point. I agree the structure of the image was produced from surface reflections (and possibly some light transmisisons through less opaque objects).

 

[removed account4]

I've often thought that due du Gras is the best photograph ever made. I still get chills when I look at it. As for Wall's collectors, there's lot of pure crap out there that commands staggering prices while much great stuff goes begging. There's no accounting for bad taste.

yea. I can only imagine what du Gras must have been like when it was first made, it must have been mind blowing. I think its a grey piece of paper in a dark room in Texas now . would still be pretty cool to see it, I mean can you imagine seeing just the grey piece of paper that had the first photograph on it, just thinking of it makes the hair on my neck stand on end too, ... I know when I have done super long exposures to see the magic on the paper. im not making judgement calls about Mr Wall's work or the other things that are able to deliver lots of $$. but they must know what they are doing seeing it sells and people buy it. my walls aren't big enough and I don't have enough room to store anything bigger than like a postal envelope sized image. LOL. you said it ( about taste ) but what do I know, im not a taste or deal maker, I'm just a guy making photos.. must be nice to have 12 foot ceilings!

 

[MattKing]

To stir the pot a bit ....
https://art21.org/watch/extended-play/jeff-wall-an-impossible-photograph-short/

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh, sure sounds like some dullards here. Bees see a different slice of the spectrum than we do, but I don't think even they are that totally void. Even the manner humans perceive our own spectrum is directly linked to the subconscious, just like our sense of taste and smell gravitates to certain things, and finds others repugnant, and causes us to think about why we don't want to eat a piece of meat with maggots on it. We aren't robots - or are we steadily becoming so? Now it you'll excuse me, I want to get back to a stack of prints intended to elicit considerably more than just "light and surface". There is, after all, a difference between a thinking human and a rote color reflection densitometer.

Anyway, Matt, thanks for posting that picture of three identical old men. It makes a good point - just how much like a clay model Godzilla Japanese B horror flick it resembles. Stiff, stiff, stiff. Yeah, I get the metamessage of soliloquy; but it's a rather crude one. Might as well have been manakins. Maybe they are.

 

[MattKing]

They aren't identical Drew. They are life size in the original.
And when you stand beside the original transparency, it is a really interesting experience.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I believe you, Matt. I'm open to "Interesting". All I'm saying is that it's not me, and why. I'm on a different wavelength esthetically, so to speak. So yeah, if he had a convenient showing in this area, I'd probably peek in. But i'm certainly not going to go out of my way.

 

[Arthurwg]

Aside from being a first, I do see and feel a truly profound beauty when I look at du Gras. Not sure exactly why. When I look at Wall's work I think, OK but so what? No beauty there for me. I'm reminded of other "conceptual" artists who seem to think having a high IQ and the rhetoric to go with it somehow makes for quality. It makes me think of the art critic Jed Perl, who talks the talk but seems totally devoid of any aesthetic sensibility. I've never seen him use the word "beautiful." I also remember what one of my teachers said to me: "The heroic age of photography is over." I've often thought that was true. But now, perhaps, I think photos like Wall's might be a new form of "heroics," just not for me.

 

[Pieter12]

Gosh, sure sounds like some dullards here. Bees see a different slice of the spectrum than we do, but I don't think even they are that totally void. Even the manner humans perceive our own spectrum is directly linked to the subconscious, just like our sense of taste and smell gravitates to certain things, and finds others repugnant, and causes us to think about why we don't want to eat a piece of meat with maggots on it. We aren't robots - or are we steadily becoming so? Now it you'll excuse me, I want to get back to a stack of prints intended to elicit considerably more than just "light and surface". There is, after all, a difference between a thinking human and a rote color reflection densitometer.

Anyway, Matt, thanks for posting that picture of three identical old men. It makes a good point - just how much like a clay model Godzilla Japanese B horror flick it resembles. Stiff, stiff, stiff. Yeah, I get the metamessage of soliloquy; but it's a rather crude one. Might as well have been manakins. Maybe they are.

But we are organisms that react according to instincts, education and acquired tastes, different from culture to culture, individual to individual. But what we are reacting to in a photograph is just the record of light on or through a surface. Some animals don't even react to photographs, they don't see them the same wy wed, they don't see them as the objects they represent. And yes, there is a difference between a thing human and a color densitometer. The densitometer won't have an opinion on what is put before it, and the human may not see the same color the same way twice.

 

[removed account4]

Gosh, sure sounds like some dullards here. Bees see a different slice of the spectrum than we do, but I don't think even they are that totally void. Even the manner humans perceive our own spectrum is directly linked to the subconscious, just like our sense of taste and smell gravitates to certain things, and finds others repugnant, and causes us to think about why we don't want to eat a piece of meat with maggots on it. We aren't robots - or are we steadily becoming so? Now it you'll excuse me, I want to get back to a stack of prints intended to elicit considerably more than just "light and surface". There is, after all, a difference between a thinking human and a rote color reflection densitometer.

<sigh>

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi Pieter. You hear people say cats can't see TV images because the highly rapid response time of their own optic nerves is out of synch with the pulse cycle of TV screen images. But that's myth. It sure isn't just about light and surface to them, even if it's just a flat screen. Yeah, had a little girl kitten on the sofa snoring through every single program until a PBS documentary on hummingbirds aired. Then she jumped up and scouted all around the TV trying to figure out a way in. She knew the active bird images on the screen weren't real, but thought real birds were inside the TV behind the screen image, and was determined to find a way to get inside. She finally gave up, but did the same thing all over again during a field rodent documentary. About the fourth time, she finally figured out it's all just a ruse and ignored the TV permanently. So it's all about the programming. They just aren't necessarily interested in the same things we are. Cats have their own cultural values, and certainly their own taste. I'm not personally into plucking feathers with my teeth before eating raw fowl. But even with cats, you can't separate subconscious and even conscious reactions from physiological sight. We're all highly interactive organisms, wherein numerous things can't be realistically compartmentalized apart from each other. The perceived qualities of color vision are one of those.

 

[Pieter12]

Hi Pieter. You hear people say cats can't see TV images because the highly rapid response time of their own optic nerves is out of synch with the pulse cycle of TV screen images. But that's myth. It sure isn't just about light and surface to them, even if it's just a flat screen. Yeah, had a little girl kitten on the sofa snoring through every single program until a PBS documentary on hummingbirds aired. Then she jumped up and scouted all around the TV trying to figure out a way in. She knew the active bird images on the screen weren't real, but though real birds were inside the TV behind the screen image, and was determined to find a way to get inside. She finally gave up, and did the same thing all over again in a field rodent documentary. About the fourth time, she finally figured out it's all just a ruse and ignored the TV permanently. So it's all about the programming. They just aren't necessarily interested in the same things we are. Cats have their own cultural values, and certainly their own taste. I'm not personally into plucking feathers with my teeth before eating raw fowl. But even to them, you can't separate subconscious and even conscious reactions from physiological sight.

I don't know squat about cats, but I have had over a dozen dogs and none of them ever reacted to a TV, mirror or still photograph or even radio. Birds do seem to react to TV, maybe because of the motion and sound. But it is possible that mammals need more than just visual cues, like scent, to react to a visual stimulus. I'm not a neuroscientist, nor do I play one on the internet.

 

[DREW WILEY]

That little kitten lived to be over a 19 year old little old lady cat, and sadly passed away two months ago. So there's simply no way to take her into a Jeff Wall exhibit to gauge her opinion. That can be risky. Once, just before portraits clients were due to arrive, a different cat snuck into the studio and got ahold of the bottom of the backdrop paper roll, started pulling on it, and rewound about half of it into a tunnel-like roll on the floor, and then wildly ran back and forth inside it shredding with with his claws just for fun. When the clients arrived, I let them in, we all went back into the studio, and discovered shredded confetti all over the place! They took it in good humor and waited while I cleaned up the mess. I still had half the roll left, suspended from the ceiling, to work with.

 

[Pieter12]

On the subject of pet and photography, a photographer friend of mind constantly has to deal with a cat that thinks there is no better place to nap than a stack of prints.

 

[faberryman]

I walked around the house today and was unable to find a place for one of Jeff Wall's large backlit transparencies. I guess if you have a couple of million dollars for a photo, you've probably have a room big enough for it. If you bought it for investment, do you just leave it rolled up in a tube down at the gallery where you purchased it? Can you even roll up a Cibachrome transparency? Forget what it looks like; what do you do with it?

 

[removed account4]

I walked around the house today and was unable to find a place for one of Jeff Wall's large backlit transparencies. I guess if you have a couple of million dollars for a photo, you've probably have a room big enough for it. If you bought it for investment, do you just leave it rolled up in a tube down at the gallery where you purchased it? Can you even roll up a Cibachrome transparency?

a lady down the road about5 miles died back in around 1990 and the caretaker was auctioning off her estate.. in the basement were paintings that were appraised for the sale and it turned out they had been "missing" since the 1920s. one hopes in 70 years there will be a way to look at yours. too bad whitey's B's buddy's aren't around to help you, they might be able to tell you a good way to store the work.