- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,950
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Well, Rothko came up somewhere in this conversation, and he was a genius. Yeah, in his desperation to find exactly the right colors, he sometimes came up with ones which faded. The great abstract impressionists were almost all serious representational painters prior to that phase. But some of the oversized, overpriced neo-heroes I just don't get; they are one trick ponies.
But I have to be honest and frankly admit I jus don't gravitate toward over-the-top "gotcha" art anyway. It reminds me of advertising photography. In a number of my own prints there are distinct meta-messages. But they don't slap you on the face. I want the overall composition to draw the eye in, and then slowly unwrap itself upon one viewing after another. That's one of the reasons I don't post any on the web. One has to dig into the details. I provide a hint or two what to look for; but it's never superficially obvious.
As far as a thesis is concerned, well, it all depends on who wrote it. Did they really see through the photographer's or painter's own eyes, and then try to effectively articulate that? I have a wonderful four volume folio set on Atget by Hambourg which does exactly that. But that's not why I bought it. It's because I already recognized his genius, even though he took thousands of less inspired shots too. But there are other aspects which these books helped me understand. Yet a lot of overviews these days, and long before, have simply been vapid "art speak".
I'm certainly not trying to devalue Jeff Wall within his own genre, whatever one chooses to call that. But if someone wants to classify it as photography per se, I'm not all that impressed. Something is missing, and sheer size and expense and auction history can't make up for it. I'd rather have one contact print by Minor White than everything posted so far of Wall's stagecraft imagery. The former truly felt the Gestalt when he saw it; the latter tries too hard to concoct it, and it ain't the same game.
But I have to be honest and frankly admit I jus don't gravitate toward over-the-top "gotcha" art anyway. It reminds me of advertising photography. In a number of my own prints there are distinct meta-messages. But they don't slap you on the face. I want the overall composition to draw the eye in, and then slowly unwrap itself upon one viewing after another. That's one of the reasons I don't post any on the web. One has to dig into the details. I provide a hint or two what to look for; but it's never superficially obvious.
As far as a thesis is concerned, well, it all depends on who wrote it. Did they really see through the photographer's or painter's own eyes, and then try to effectively articulate that? I have a wonderful four volume folio set on Atget by Hambourg which does exactly that. But that's not why I bought it. It's because I already recognized his genius, even though he took thousands of less inspired shots too. But there are other aspects which these books helped me understand. Yet a lot of overviews these days, and long before, have simply been vapid "art speak".
I'm certainly not trying to devalue Jeff Wall within his own genre, whatever one chooses to call that. But if someone wants to classify it as photography per se, I'm not all that impressed. Something is missing, and sheer size and expense and auction history can't make up for it. I'd rather have one contact print by Minor White than everything posted so far of Wall's stagecraft imagery. The former truly felt the Gestalt when he saw it; the latter tries too hard to concoct it, and it ain't the same game.
Last edited:
