|
Twenties Superstar posted:Andreas Gursky Lots of great photos in this thread, but this one... if it was posted in the photo-a-day threads it would get poo poo on so bad. If it was hung in a gallery with no artist label, it would get poo poo on so bad. The only thing that makes this 'good' is knowing that the photographer actually knows what he's doing in other cases.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2009 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Would it actually? How would you critique it? It's a shot of some brush and trees with some kind of line, probably a telephone pole guidewire, intersecting it. It's uninteresting. The exposure isn't great as the highlights seem blown out. There's nothing really going on - there is no particular style to the growth of the trees, it's just... random roadside brush. The wire doesn't really lead to anything - my eye doesn't settle on any particular part of the image. This is probably related to the conversion from film to a digital image but there is a rectangle of correct-looking shadow areas in the upper right, while all the shadow areas outside of the rectangle have an ugly green cast. It's complete nothingness that is considered good because of the artist's reputation. But what can you do... that's the way the art world is. If Picasso accidentally spilled some coffee on a blank canvas and decided on a lark to sign it, that 'piece' would be extremely highly valued because of the artist's other work and resulting fame. That is exactly the case with this photo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2009 21:33
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:Why would you assume that Gursky doesn't know what he is doing with this image even though you admit that he does at other times? Do you think that maybe he took this image as a big joke on the art world or that he simply forgot what made a photo interesting and everyone else conveniently did too because "welp he's an artist and art is weird"? I didn't mean to imply that Gursky didn't think he knew he was doing when taking the photo in question... just that whatever he was trying to convey does not come across as obviously or eloquently as his other work. He must have found this subject and composition interesting or he wouldn't have taken the shot. He didn't simply forget what made a photo interesting, he just failed to do so in this particular photo. Not every photograph that Gursky or Leibovitz or Ansel Adams or anyone in this thread takes is at the same level of greatness. In my opinion, the photo in question is not an example of good banality - it's just boring. But most art critics can't say "Sorry Gursky, we don't like this one. Maybe next time." It's a Gursky! They would look stupid! So, in the end, what makes this photo acceptable to the art world is the fact that the artist's other work is exceptional, so this must be too. Gursky (acceptable):  Some fictional guy on Flickr who likes taking photos of roadside brush (unacceptable):  Edit: I orginally linked to this image, trying to find a Flickr account with something as similar as possible, but I think the point is better made just using the two images above. I'll stop editing this now, sorry The greatest/worst thing about art critique is every argument can be won by saying "Well obviously you don't get it". I'm done discussing this photo so lets just both agree that the other person doesn't get it. Or you can reply with "MORE CAPITAL LETTERS". Gambl0r fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Dec 7, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2009 00:13
|
|