interesting Gursky article

[lynnb]

Stefan Beyst has written an interesting essay on Andreas Gursky over on AmericansuburbX - you can read it here http://www.americansuburbx.com/2011/08/andreas-gursky-from-worlds-spirits-eye.html

(Andreas Gursky recently achieved a sale price of $4.3m for his photograph Rhein II)

[Neare]

From what I gathered from the article, it seems as if Stefan has gone to great lengths to undermine Gursky's work in general. People have this need to justify why a single work sold for that price even though the sale itself has no direct or barely any indirect influence to themselves. It's time to live and let live.

[x-ray]

A friend and I recently went to Atlanta and met Struth and the director of MOMA. The High Museum hosted a talk and exhibit of a half dozen of his images. After listening to both for an hour and viewing his prints and then personally talking with both I have to say both of us were totally unimpressed with Struth as a person and his images. My statements are personal opinion so they're worth what you payed for them but I dont think I have ever hears or seen such a load of BS in my life. The images were ordinary at best, amateur in execution and totally uninspiring. If he had given me a gift of one of his prints I would not hang it on my wall.

It has crossed my mind whether someone like Gurskys is a joke some curator has played on the art world. Is this a joke to see how much BS the public will take before they realize they've been conned. Is it a contest to see who can con more museum directors and wealthy buyers, Gurskys or Struth?

From what I've seen Gurskys work is no better. Again it's just one opinion.

[Turtle]

Despite being a tough read, I agree with most of what he says. I think he makes some solid points and explains them quite well all things considered. In fact, I think some of his points are so solid that it would be rather difficult to know how to respond to them.

[Richard G]

Thanks for posting this Lynn. I think Gursky is remarkable, and I am allergic to most modern art, chiefly because it is mostly rubbish. This piece by Beyst attends more to market price and status and implies that Gursky set out to conquer the world in just the way he has. This is to deny his artistic integrity. This looks like social analysis with a nasty ad hominem streak, the give away being the fatuous last paragraph.

[Pablito]

I am allergic to most modern art, chiefly because it is mostly rubbish.


Well now, THAT is enlightening!

[Turtle]

I know what you mean. I do not think his comments need necessarily be read as negative, rather than just matter of fact, but I felt the overall tone was one of very carefully measured criticism. At least thats how I read it. I also think that is why it was such a powerful piece: his arguments are very matter of fact and rationally explained leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions. However, I suspect he knew which conclusions would be drawn.

With ref to an earlier post, I do not think the article necessarily challenges Gursky's creative integrity, but instead comments on the reality of the commercial art world within which Gursky has ascended and the demands it places on its artists, consciously or otherwise. Equally, it would be naive to assume that artists work entirely within a vacuum, without reference to branding or commercial (or peer competition) considerations. To get Darwinian for a moment, you have limited choices when it comes to the environment in which individuals compete and alternate strategies are limited in number. The environment is what it is and you either play or you don't. Gursky did and did rather well.

I too agree, but am unsure if the statements, which are factual in presentation and nature, are truly negative. While they appear to be meant to be negative -- they seem for me to be just a discussion of the essence of the work.

I only was able to view the Ocean show for about an hour on the last day at Gogosian in Chelsea, they were compelling images, but the restrictions about viewing them, coupled with the Gogosian studied "grandeur" rather spoiled the experience for me. I would have rather seen them in a museum.

[Peter Wijninga]

Challenging and controversial... and very much worth reading! Many thanks for posting. For those who have not noted: inside the article, just underneath the Dubai photo, "Stefan Beyst" is click able and leads you to his own photographic work.

[Turtle]

Ah the "environment" -- it does seem more removed from my own experience each day. I remember when art was a fun, and we just hung out and longed for a little recognition - coupled with a little dough.

And anyone can still do this... however, I suspect Gursky wanted to play an in doing so there were certain realities that affected his strategy.

[250swb]

Here we go again, there's nothing like a good lynching.

I wonder how many times he can be lynched though, because sooner or later somebody is bound to ask the guy with the rope 'if you can do better than Gursky, lets see it'. Wouldn't that put a plug in the BS hole.

Steve

[paulfish4570]

i like the essay, understand it, and agree with much of what the author has to say. he could have used a good editor, though; the piece is about twice as long as it needs to be. :)

[paulfish4570]

thanks to you guys, i looked up some struth. his photos look banal to me, but i think that is the point. so, if you see art in the snapshot aesthetic, then struth might interest you.

[Turtle]

I think this is being unfair. Strong opinions are not the same thing as a lynching. Would you prefer that people did not express their views if they are critical?

There is a clear discussion here with points being made, rather than 'this is BS.. 'effing rubbish etc.'

Here we go again, there's nothing like a good lynching.

I wonder how many times he can be lynched though, because sooner or later somebody is bound to ask the guy with the rope 'if you can do better than Gursky, lets see it'. Wouldn't that put a plug in the BS hole.

Steve

[paulfish4570]

a struthian landscape:
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b206/fish280/Abstracts/x100%20first%20shots%2010%2029%2011/DSCF0687rff.jpg?t=1325099491

[jsrockit]

Here we go again, there's nothing like a good lynching.

I wonder how many times he can be lynched though, because sooner or later somebody is bound to ask the guy with the rope 'if you can do better than Gursky, lets see it'. Wouldn't that put a plug in the BS hole.

Steve

Agreed. You don't have to like it, but you can still respect it on certain levels. So much hate for contemporary non-journalist photographers on this site. However, it is each individual's right to use the internet to do so.

[shadowfox]

"World Spirit" ???

After reading that, I have more respect on Mr. Gursky's works.
Sometimes a critique can backfire into a wealth of insight about the subject.

[I.G.I.]

Interesting essay, thanks for having pointed out at it.

[tunalegs]

Old thread. I still fail to see anything particularly interesting about Gursky's photo snaps, at least nothing I haven't seen in other photographers work. Maybe it's the sort of work you have to see in person to appreciate.

[Roger Hicks]

Old thread. I still fail to see anything particularly interesting about Gursky's photo snaps, at least nothing I haven't seen in other photographers work. Maybe it's the sort of work you have to see in person to appreciate.
It is.

Cheers,

R.

[Charlie Lemay]

When I began making seamless Photoshop collages in 1995, the criticism I kept encountering from curators was that being seamless was a problem They wanted to see the artifice of collage, more like what the Starn twins were doing in their analog work. Funny how things come around and the top curators and collectors in the world now see the "seamless" aspect as wonderful. As to content, my digital collages are political, and challenge the patriarchal status quo, so it is unlikely to gain acceptance in the art world any time soon. Given the supperficial content of the this highly regareded collage work, Photoshop's content aware tool is sure to spawn a legion of imitators.

[mfogiel]

I am not a fan of the so called conceptual photography in almost any form. Perhaps the maximum I could consider artistic would be an unfocused image, or a fork on a plate.
However, I think the more important element of the Gursky story, is the so called "Anchor effect".
When you step into a rug shop in an oriental bazaar and ask for a price, the seller will invariably begin with a price which seems far too high. However, he has planted his anchor... If he says 1000$, it is unlikely, you would try to bid with 50 cents - more likely with a few hundred $, even though the rug could actually be worth 5 or 10. It has been observed, that people could be influenced by an anchor number, if they have thought of one, even if unrelated to the value of the object they bid for.
This has been used many times in various stock price and art price manipulations. After all, if a stock XYZ was once bid 100$, at 50$ it starts looking like a bargain...
Therefore, if a banal photo by an uninspiring photographer has sold for 4.3 million USD, and someone offered you another one for 10.000 USD, it would seem a steal...

I have nothing against people using their freedom as they please, as long as this does not take my freedom away, hence, I am totally indifferent to this particular photo sale.

In a situation where my sense of value is attributing a price to an object, which is lower than what it sells for, I simply make no bid and live happy all the same.

[Peter_wrote:]

a struthian landscape:



i understand, when someone, looking at photographs of gursky, struth, becher, shore and many others, at first finds them banal.
i always appreciate it then, when someone posts a photo made by himself, of which he thinks it has the same substance.
nothing illustrates better the quality of gursky's or struth's photographs as the direct comparison with such a real snapshot.

[Charlie Lemay]

Okay Peter, I'll bite.

Here is Redemption, one of my latest digital collages. Film and digital images seamlessly collaged in Photoshop. I welcome the comparison on the technical and content level. You can see more of my work on my web site.

[bobbyrab]

I'm not sure Charlie how different your work would be when viewing a print against viewing online, but I really don't feel anyone can have anything worthwhile saying if they haven't seen Gursky's work in the flesh. They really are a different thing up close.

I found them quite mesmerising, they create their own atmosphere that's difficult to describe really, but they're art works that use part of the photographic process, I didn't see them as photographs in themselves.

[Charlie Lemay]

Bobby,

I am not saying I find nothing in Gursky's work, but I do value unique personal vision over strategy and concept in any art. In the end. it's what speaks to each of us. I was merely pointing out the irony that the curators I showed my work to in the 1990s devaluied it because it was seamless collage ,and now the most valued photograph in the world is being praised for the same quality. Peter's comment suggested the work of any photographer who was critical of his work, would only serve to reinforce Gursky's position. I just wanted to show that you can use high technical skill with the medium and say something meaningful as well, not just create an atmosphere. Nothing wrong with atmosphere, but it does not trump meaning for me.

[bobbyrab]

Just curious Charlie, have you ever seen a Gursky print up close?

[Peter_wrote:]

Okay Peter, I'll bite.

Here is Redemption, one of my latest digital collages. Film and digital images seamlessly collaged in Photoshop. I welcome the comparison on the technical and content level. You can see more of my work on my web site.

thanks for sharing. interesting work. but i think it doesn't make much sense, to compare it with the work of other artists, and make some kind of competition, which is "better". especially when they are so different, made with different intentions.

my comment was more about real snapshots. in such discussions you often here the picasso-argument (my child paints such things too in the kindergarten) in different versions.

[CNNY]

Bobby,

I am not saying I find nothing in Gursky's work, but I do value unique personal vision over strategy and concept in any art. In the end. it's what speaks to each of us. I was merely pointing out the irony that the curators I showed my work to in the 1990s devaluied it because it was seamless collage ,and now the most valued photograph in the world is being praised for the same quality. Peter's comment suggested the work of any photographer who was critical of his work, would only serve to reinforce Gursky's position. I just wanted to show that you can use high technical skill with the medium and say something meaningful as well, not just create an atmosphere. Nothing wrong with atmosphere, but it does not trump meaning for me.

I think the curators you spoke to were just behind the curve, which was unfortunate for you, but not surprising.
I would not define Gursky's work by a technique though. He also has un-manipulated images in his portfolio which display the same 'unique personal vision' as you call it. He typically uses Photoshop to amplify the essence of a scene, to make it more like he experienced it than it may be in reality. I would not put that down to stategy and concept. His straight images are recognizable Gursky's. The manipulated ones are more so.
I think the image you posted is too different in what it is trying to do to meaningfully compare.

[taskoni]

i understand, when someone, looking at photographs of gursky, struth, becher, shore and many others, at first finds them banal.
i always appreciate it then, when someone posts a photo made by himself, of which he thinks it has the same substance.


Dear Peter,
It seems to me you have the answer to your own question in your own post. I guess some people (including myself too) who find Gursky's work banal don't shoot pictures that has the same substance because of that very reason - it's banal!. It is great you like this kind of work, but please don't try to make everyone like it. Don't be so offensive, everyone has his/her own taste, let it be :)

I find Gursky's work banal too, and yes, I have seen his works in person and it didn't make me somehow like it more :(


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8091/8377271725_c1a001576e_c.jpg



Regards,

Boris

[taskoni]

Charlie, your picture is different stuff but I like!

Regards,

Boris

[photomoof]

Bobby,
Nothing wrong with atmosphere, but it does not trump meaning for me.

"Meaning" is not an easy concept to define in art [or in general].

I find Gursky’s work far more interesting for me personally than yours. Is that "meaning [or meaningful]?"

I doubt it - what interests me has no meaning. (For the record I have seen hundreds of Gurskys in person, I have only seen yours on the web.)

[MikeL]

I find Gursky’s work far more interesting for me


Don't know if this is reasonable/possible Fred, but could you mention what makes Gursky's work interesting for you?
Thanks,
Mike

[photomoof]

Don't know if this is reasonable/possible Fred, but could you mention what makes Gursky's work interesting for you?
Thanks,
Mike

Partly because it is part of my artistic culture and discourse -- for a very long time, at least 40 years?

But I can no more help you like it, than I could pick out a wife for you.

I can say that its visual presence is simply enjoyable.

[Peter_wrote:]

Dear Peter,
It is great you like this kind of work, but please don't try to make everyone like it.

where have you read that i do so? please don't make assumptions.

[valdas]

Read the introduction... The very first sentence:

After the big retrospective in the MoMA 2001, a new big show in the Munich ‘Haus der Kunst’ is dedicated to the photographer whose ’99 cent II Diptychon’ (1999) has recently been auctioned at Sotheby’s for $3,346,456 – the highest price ever paid for a photograph: Andreas Gursky.


Money. That sets the tone of the article - how on earth Gursky can be worth that much...

[bobbyrab]

Read the introduction... The very first sentence:

After the big retrospective in the MoMA 2001, a new big show in the Munich ‘Haus der Kunst’ is dedicated to the photographer whose ’99 cent II Diptychon’ (1999) has recently been auctioned at Sotheby’s for $3,346,456 – the highest price ever paid for a photograph: Andreas Gursky.


Money. That sets the tone of the article - how on earth Gursky can be worth that much...

What does it matter, it's not your money.

[valdas]

What does it matter, it's not your money.

No, it is not. I am not talking about money. The Critic does.

[MikeL]

Partly because it is part of my artistic culture and discourse -- for a very long time, at least 40 years?

But I can no more help you like it, than I could pick out a wife for you.

I can say that its visual presence is simply enjoyable.

Thanks Fred. My friends who are artists often ask what I see (or what questions come up) when looking at a river, and I do the same to them. I'm always curious....

[taskoni]

I believe Valdas wanted to say exactly what she (if I am not mistaking) wrote "how on earth Gursky can be worth that much", because before hitting the jackpot there was no threads about him and his "art" :rolleyes:
Go figure :D

Regards,

Boris

[valdas]

I believe Valdas wanted to say exactly what she (if I am not mistaking) wrote "how on earth Gursky can be worth that much", because before hitting the jackpot there was no threads about him and his "art" :rolleyes:
Go figure :D

Regards,

Boris

:)
Correct

[bobbyrab]

I'm genuinely confused. Normally one would say 'how on earth can Gursky be worth that much', the meaning of which would be that you were incredulous that anyone would pay such a sum.
You have actually written "how on earth Gursky CAN be worth that much", which I would take as a preamble to justifying the value.
Which did you mean?

[photomoof]

I'm genuinely confused. Normally one would say 'how on earth can Gursky be worth that much', the meaning of which would be that you were incredulous that anyone would pay such a sum.
You have actually written "how on earth Gursky CAN be worth that much", which I would take as a preamble to justifying the value.
Which did you mean?

Let's face it the entire Gagosian Gallery phenomena has shocked everyone -- probably about the same as finding bankers are "earning" 15 million a year.

[zauhar]

Lynn thanks for posting the link to that interesting article.

I will say that I like some of Gursky's work, but am not blown away by it - that said, I have not seen his prints up close. I didn't think much of Monet's haystacks until I saw them in person.

Paul, you think the article is too long, believe me as a piece of academic discourse it is mercifully brief and to the point. ;-)

Randy

[valdas]

I'm genuinely confused. Normally one would say 'how on earth can Gursky be worth that much', the meaning of which would be that you were incredulous that anyone would pay such a sum.
You have actually written "how on earth Gursky CAN be worth that much", which I would take as a preamble to justifying the value.
Which did you mean?

If you read carefully, those were not my words, I was summing up the tone of the article...

[bobbyrab]

The thing is, if I have a darkroom print from any of the great photographers living or dead, it's not so much better than a good quality print from a book by the given photographer.
The print quality will be better, but not so much as to change the fundamentals of the image [I know that's a huge generalisation but bear with me].
The difference with a Gursky is the print is a completely different experience from seeing it reproduced elsewhere. That makes it more of a unique artefact, and hence a better commodity.
They lend themselves well to being traded for high values in the same way as paintings, but this shouldn't be confused with worth as art, there has to be a link between the two, but they're not the same thing.

[Charlie Lemay]

Boris, Thanks.

Bobby,

I have not seen one in person, but there is nothing in the reproductions I have seen or the critical acclaim I have read that would make me want to. It does not matter what I think of his work, I just wanted to point out the shift in the art world around seamless Photoshop collage since the 90s, because I had my own experience with this to relate too. I am not impressed by the art statement or the work, speaking as someone with 18 years experience making digital collages using Photoshop. Regardless of whether my work resonates with you or not, my point of view is not unfounded, or uninformed. i spent 15 minutes alone with my daughter in the King's Chamber within the Great Pyramid in 2004. There was an ambiance, atmospheric experience, in that room that is hard to quantify. I can apreciate that kind of thing, but big does not always mean better for me. I have seen Gregory Crewdson's large scae work in person and do not feel their large size contributed any more to my liking this work. I also saw cindy Sheman's clowns up close and dislike then just as much as I do the smaller verions I run across online. I doubt very seriously that seeing Gursky's images up close would have much of an effect on my opinion.

I may seem like a Philistine, but I find the whole thing about Gursky's work to be an Emporer's new clothes situation.

[bobbyrab]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you have to see them in order to judge, I was just curious as they are quite different when viewed in person, but probably not so much that it would change your opinion of them.
It's funny, having read the whole article with it's multiple references and comparisons and long winded theory. It basically boils down in the end to he doesn't like them.
Like sitting in the Rothko room at Tate modern, I don't know what they mean or represent, but they induce a calm over me. Somethings should just be simple.

[photomoof]

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you have to see them in order to judge, I was just curious as they are quite different when viewed in person, but probably not so much that it would change your opinion of them.
It's funny, having read the whole article with it's multiple references and comparisons and long winded theory. It basically boils down in the end to he doesn't like them.
Like sitting in the Rothko room at Tate modern, I don't know what they mean or represent, but they induce a calm over me. Somethings should just be simple.

The article is a tough read, it so grammatically awkward, and so formal. The writer tries so hard not to seem lost. It reads like a Google translation, or Jill Johnston in the Voice. :eek:

I do think one needs to see them in person, when a gallery is not overcrowded.

But then again I seem to be out of sync with many here -- I stayed at MoMA to watch Christian Marclay's the clock for hours. And I have seen Rainer Werner Fassbinder's Berlin Alexanderplatz in one sitting at MOMA. Good to find out from several Rff experts it is all BS -- and we [who find the work worth thinking seriously about] therefore are -- dumb as posts.

[Charlie Lemay]

Thanks PKR,

I appreciate the education. What I see in Gursky, more than this, is his debt to stock photography, like those endless rows of colorful tulips shot with a long lens in Holland. That aesthetic is fine for what it is, but it does not speak to me, no matter how large or perfect it can be made in Photoshop, or how scholarly the artist statement. I would suggest another headline could be "Have Art Schools Ruined Art. If you get a chance, rent the John Malkovich film, "Art School Confidential," a hilarious send up of the art world that is all too true.

[ QUOTE=PKR;2096117]Hi Charlie-

I don't know your level of knowledge or interest but - beginning at the 9th frame (post #1009) is a series on the Dusseldorf Art Academy, Bernd & Hilla Becher and their progeny:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95325&page=41

There is no need to like any of the work, but an understanding is important to all of us who take photography seriously - I think..[/QUOTE]

[CNNY]

The article is a tough read, it so grammatically awkward, and so formal. The writer tries so hard not to seem lost. It reads like a Google translation, or Jill Johnston in the Voice. :eek:


I clicked through to the authors original dutch (flemish) version of the essay.
Reading that makes it a lot clearer what he is trying to say. There is some subtlety that got lost in translation. I agree or go along with a lot of the observations, but I do not share his harsh conclusion of Gursky.
I also have the impression that the author does not have good technical understanding of the techniques that Gursky uses. He seems to suggest that what he has done was only possible with exclusive digital capture technology. Most of his images are shot on 4x5 and 5x7 slide film, hardly exclusive or cutting edge. Artists have always used newly available technology, it is too easy to conclude based on that that the artist is only motivated by capitalism and profit. I'm sure he is concerned about how he is positioned in the art market, but it is also possible to ignore all that and just look at the images, and judge them for what they are. There are plenty of people who over the last 20 years have had access to the same technology, and have not managed to produce memorable images with it. There are also lots of great self promoters in the art world who are also not producing such interesting work.

[varjag]

I don't like the amount of manipulation in his work, but nonetheless find his images visually striking. He is also fresh, as in not looking like a copycat of other artists.

[J. Borger]

I think it's nearly impossible to discuss Gursky without having seen some real prints of his work.
His work does not look impressive on screen or even in a book, but gets a complete different impact on a museum wall!!
If you see him at work and how much time he puts in a single picture ..... That might also change your view on his work, which looks very ordinary on the surface.

[photomoof]

I think it's nearly impossible to discuss Gursky without having seen some real prints of his work.
His work does not look impressive on screen or even in a book, but gets a complete different impact on a museum wall!!
If you see him at work and how much time he puts in a single picture ..... That might also change your view on his work, which looks very ordinary on the surface.

Big Bang Theory:

Leonard Hofstadter: What I'm trying to say is that maybe you can't approach this as a purely intellectual exercise.
Sheldon Cooper: What do you mean?
Leonard Hofstadter: Well, uh, remember when you tried to learn how to swim using the internet?
Sheldon Cooper: I did learn how to swim.
Leonard Hofstadter: On the floor.
Sheldon Cooper: The skills are transferable. I just have no interest in going in the water.

[Charlie Lemay]

How many of you have actually seen the Mona Lisa, the Sistine Ceiling, or Guernica. You don't have to actually see them to have an opinion about their content. You may love the graphic sinplicity of Gursky's work or dismiss it's banality. Both are valid reactions. You may question the monetary value of his work has acheived, just as you may wonder why ARod makes so much money with the New York Yankees. For the record, I have seen Guernica, and the actual workmanship looks shoddy compared to the reproductions I have seen in books. I still think it is a masterful work, even though it looks like Picasso painted it with a roller while having his lunch. The "meaning" of the image overpowers its technical acheivement. I feel the opposite way about Gursky"s images. As to the amount of time involved, I agree, digital manipulation on that scale can take many hours. My own digital collages, which I print 34" wide, can take uo to a hundred hours each to produced. But, like most things other than wine, wisdom and perfect attendance, time served is not equivalent to quality. It is an interesting back story but in the end, we experience the actual visual image. Seeing it on the internet is enough to evaluate its content. Seeing it in person is helpful to evaluate its physical attributes and presence. For me, the former is the determining factor by far, but the later may be for others. Whatever floats your boat.

[sailor]

Charlie Lemay, I've figured out where you're going wrong. 34" is nowhere near big enough. Try having your images printed 20 feet wide. That's the answer. You'll also be giving potential purchasers the subliminal text that you don't want to be selling to people with small suburban homes but to folk with huge walls to display huge artworks. Also start asking huge amounts of money for your work. Good luck!

[photomoof]

How many of you have actually seen the Mona Lisa, the Sistine Ceiling, or Guernica. You don't have to actually see them to have an opinion about their content.

You can have an opinion about anything. My father thought he hated clams, so he never ate any.

I have seen the Guernica (I even saw it right after Tony Shafrazi defaced it), but it is not so much individual works.

If you have not seen Michelangelo's work, or Leonardo drawings you need to take some time off and do so. They are widely available in the US. Michelangelo's David-Apollo is in Washington DC from December 13, 2012, through March 6, 2013. Leonardo, you really should go to the Uffizi in Florence, no one should die without going to Florence. And Picasso, everyone can see a Picasso, great works are everywhere.

Content? Content?
I don't paint things. I only paint the difference between things. — Henri Matisse

[dabick42]

If Gursky intended his art to speak to me, I can't hear it, therefore perhaps I'm deaf.

If Gursky intended his vision to inspire me, I can't see it, therefore perhaps I'm blind.

If Gursky's work is admired and praised by everyone except me, perhaps I'm dumb.

Maybe.

But not so dumb as those who think Gursky is producing artwork that is in any way enriching our culture.

Gursky is only enriching Gursky.....

[Roger Hicks]

You can have an opinion about anything. My father thought he hated clams, so he never ate any.

I have seen the Guernica (I even saw it right after Tony Shafrazi defaced it), but it is not so much individual works.

If you have not seen Michelangelo's work, or Leonardo drawings you need to take some time off and do so. They are widely available in the US. Michelangelo's David-Apollo is in Washington DC from December 13, 2012, through March 6, 2013. Leonardo, you really should go to the Uffizi in Florence, no one should die without going to Florence. And Picasso, everyone can see a Picasso, great works are everywhere.

Content? Content?
I don't paint things. I only paint the difference between things. — Henri Matisse
One reason that I wouldn't go to Florence is that given Italian driving standards, you may indeed die while trying to get there...

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

If Gursky intended his art to speak to me, I can't hear it, therefore perhaps I'm deaf.

If Gursky intended his vision to inspire me, I can't see it, therefore perhaps I'm blind.

If Gursky's work is admired and praised by everyone except me, perhaps I'm dumb.

Maybe.

But not so dumb as those who think Gursky is producing artwork that is in any way enriching our culture.

Gursky is only enriching Gursky.....
How on earth do you prove that Gursky is not 'enriching our culture' (whatever that may mean)?.

Cheers,

R.

[Sparrow]

One reason that I wouldn't go to Florence is that given Italian driving standards, you may indeed die while trying to get there...

Cheers,

R.


... Palazzo Ducale would be OK

[photomoof]

I have seen Guernica, and the actual workmanship looks shoddy compared to the reproductions I have seen in books.

I have seen Guernica maybe 100 times.

"shoddy?" we have no common ground.

[photomoof]

One reason that I wouldn't go to Florence is that given Italian driving standards, you may indeed die while trying to get there...

Cheers,

R.

The first time I drove from Milano to Firenze I was a bit tense on the autostrada, but other than driving 100 mph in the fog around Bologna it was uneventful, unless one counts all the honking. During the fog I just finally stopped out of fear and ate in Bologna for a week. It is a crazy place to drive, but so beautiful.

You have to adjust, I have ridden my bicycle on the autostrada many times. For those not familiar with Italian cycling habits here is a great article http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=9839.

Firenze is most definitely a tourist trap, but worth it, for a walk in the Boboli Gardens. The coffee gets cheaper the further away from the Pontevico you go.

[photomoof]

If Gursky intended his art to speak to me, I can't hear it, therefore perhaps I'm deaf.
If Gursky intended his vision to inspire me, I can't see it, therefore perhaps I'm blind.
If Gursky's work is admired and praised by everyone except me, perhaps I'm dumb.
Maybe.


Trust me, he does not intend his art to speak to, inspire, or secure your praise. He is not in the least interested in you. He does not know you.

[Charlie Lemay]

Eastern sages have said all along that this, reality, is the dream. I decided long ago that the purpose of art is to "wake up" the artist, and in that process, to wake up others. Fame and fortune are possible results in this "dream" that can arise to lull us back to sleep.

I love Guernica, but the paint is applied so thinly and it appears that some areas have none at all. The strokes are free and spontaneous. I love it! By comparison to the high technique of the Flemish masters it appears to be shoddy, but to focus on that view misses the point. By comparison Gursky's high technique, large format impeccable Photoshop manipulation, Picasso's craftsmanship seems less. I used the word shoddy facetiously.

[photomoof]

I used the word shoddy facetiously.

Perhaps carelessly, but not facetiously.

You were clear in preferring the reproduction.

For the record, I have seen Guernica, and the actual workmanship looks shoddy compared to the reproductions I have seen in books. I still think it is a masterful work, even though it looks like Picasso painted it with a roller while having his lunch. The "meaning" of the image overpowers its technical acheivement.

[Roger Hicks]

The first time I drove from Milano to Firenze I was a bit tense on the autostrada, but other than driving 100 mph in the fog around Bologna it was uneventful, unless one counts all the honking. During the fog I just finally stopped out of fear and ate in Bologna for a week. It is a crazy place to drive, but so beautiful.

You have to adjust, I have ridden my bicycle on the autostrada many times. For those not familiar with Italian cycling habits here is a great article http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=9839.

Firenze is most definitely a tourist trap, but worth it, for a walk in the Boboli Gardens. The coffee gets cheaper the further away from the Pontevico you go.
The very first time we were in Italy, on the motorcycle, we were rear-ended after 45 minutes. We were stopped at road works at the time. Frances couldn't walk for three days.

All subsequent trips (four, I think) have been in the Land Rover, and every single time I have seen ample evidence that even middle-shed men drive like retarded teenagers. Not all of them, to be sure, but enough that if I never go there again, it will be too soon. There was the fellow who zoomed between us and a wall in an hotel car park: 8 feet clear one side, 200 the other. Guess which side the cretin chose. At 30 mph or more. If Frances had opened the door another few inches the door (she'd just started), she'd have lost a leg.

On another trip: five fatal or serious accidents holding up the traffic in Italy. None in Slovenia, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Germany, France.

On the last trip (2009): hit the brakes HARD on the first roundabout as I was coming into Italy because a motorcyclist just didn't slow down. A few miles further down the road, he and the motorcycle were spread across the road. Later in the day the car was physically attacked by some short-arse who didn't think I should slow down for tolls on the autostrada: the wing is still dented, though I replaced the door which retained the imprint of his knuckles. If I ever go back I'll be carrying CS spray. We had no comparable problems on the rest of that trip (France, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosova, Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Switzerland).

Adjust? No. I've driven/ridden in India, Mexico, Greece, Malta, and other places they reckon have crazy drivers. None of them is a patch on Italy. They're not just incompetent: I can live with that. They're stupidly, rudely, aggressively incompetent.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Gursky is only enriching Gursky.....
What's actually wrong with an artist being paid for his work?

Cheers,

R.

[Charlie Lemay]

Hi Roger,

You'd better stay away from Cairo.

all the best,

Charlie

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

You'd better stay away from Cairo.

all the best,

Charlie
Dear Charlie,

I think I will... But in any case, I'd be unlikely to be driving/riding.

Purely personally, I'd rather have one of your pics on my wall than a Gursky -- but then again, a Gursky would probably fill half my biggest wall.

In a sense, yes, his big pics prompt all kinds of thoughts (not least on the nature of banality and slickness as an object of meditation) while yours, paradoxically, leave more room for me to think, even though they are often crowded and complex. Just personal taste, I guess.

Cheers,

R.

[tunalegs]

All of this gives me a good idea for making money.

[Charlie Lemay]

Thanks Roger.

I only make the digital pieces I am inspired to make. That'snot a good business plan. In an essay I read years ago by Robert Graves on art, which I have been unable to find despite numerous searches online, he says there are two kinds of art: the art of Venus and the art of Apollo. The art of Venus is inspired by the Muse and the art of Apollo is experimentation. In other words, one is intuitive and the other intellectual. He comes down on the side of inspiration over experimentation, and I agree. He says the purpose of experimentation is to hone your craft while you wait to be inspired.

The reason the art world is predominentlay intellectual is that art schools can teach experimentation, but they can't teach inspiration. It is something the artist has to allow, not something they can learn. All anyone can do is model it, no term by term measurable progress, no four year degree program. When Tom Wolf said in the "Painted Word" that Modern Art exists to illustrate its theory, he was talking about the intellectualization of art. If the artist statement makes intellectual sense, then the art must be significant. I don't think that follows. I have known some artists who write statements that repurpose their work depending on the prospectus of the show they are submitting work to. When I have asked them about this inconsistency, they have said they learned this "trick" in art school. Do the times make the artist, or does the artist make the times. It is always hard to tell in the present moment. I count myself fortunate that I did not go to art school or gain acceptance from the art world. I am free to listen only to my Muse and go wherever that takes me. So far, it has been a pretty interesting journey.

[filmfan]

Love this conversation. I enjoy seeing Gursky's prints for the visual feast. That's all. Goodbye!

[bobbyrab]

That's a mighty big jump in Mexico. Anyone experience of Mexican driving.

[Richard G]

The revived section of this thread has been very good, mostly, including Roger's warning on driving in Italy. I used the train exclusively in Italy and will continue to do so. I never tire of looking through the one book I have of Gursky's pictures.

[Roger Hicks]

That's a mighty big jump in Mexico. Anyone experience of Mexican driving.
Yes, lots. They're infinitely more skilled than Italians.

Cheers,

R.

[Roger Hicks]

The reality is seldom close to our personal experience, Italy is about the same as most of Europe. You were probably like me, the social reality of Italian driving made me nuts, honking to get in front, then fear of being in front. Interesting the UK vs the US.

Road fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants per year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Your list:
Malta, 3.4
Switzerland, 4.7
France, 5.5
Austria, 8.2
Italy - 8.7
Croatia, 9.1
Bulgaria, 8.8
Romania, 9.4
Serbia, 9.8
Hungary, 9.9
Slovenia, 10.4
India, 11.1
Greece, 14.4
Mexico, 20.7

UK - 3.59
USA - 12.3
The figures tell you almost nothing. Idiots can kill (a) themselves (b) each other or (c) anyone they can get. As an example of the low value of raw figures, disproportionately many are killed when they are hit by motorcyclists -- because motorcyclists are commonly used as cue-balls by car drivers...

Driving in California is interesting -- I've done a lot of that too -- but NOT as interesting as Italy. In most countries, if you're half awake, you're half-way safe. In Italy, alertness doesn't matter. I have NEVER felt as much at risk in any of the countries 'above' Italy in your list as in Italy.

India, too, is much influenced by crashes of crowded vehicles: one accident can be 10, 20, 30, 40 deaths. In Italy they do it on a one-by-one basis.

Stop, too, to consider what you said. My personal experience is real, not unreal. It is based on thousands of miles in most of the countries listed (though not the very small ones like Malta or Slovenia). Why would I make it up?

Cheers,

R.

[dabick42]

@ moofy...

Quote: ''I am sure this has something to do with Florence, Michelangelo and Gursky''.

Never mind the irrelevance of car crash statistics to this thread - why have you inserted Gursky into the same sentence as Florence and Michelangelo ?

It's like mentioning Mickey Spillane in the same breath as Shakespeare and Stratford-on-Avon.... (!)

[photomoof]

My personal experience is real, not unreal. It is based on thousands of miles in most of the countries listed (though not the very small ones like Malta or Slovenia). Why would I make it up?


Sorry not meaning to question your personal experience.

But in the '80s, me younger, Italian girlfriend, and a nimble Lancia Fulvia, I loved driving in Italy and Spain.

@ moofy...

Quote:
It's like mentioning Mickey Spillane in the same breath as Shakespeare and Stratford-on-Avon.... (!)
You got a problem with Brooklyn?