I am glad this conversation happened as I am glad to learn a bit about Ballen. The art world would be pretty boring if we all liked the same folks and it looks like I like someone that a few of you do not! (However, I don't want his work hanging in my bedroom, as I have a hard enough time sleeping at nite, haha.)
There are a few interesting conversations going on in this thread. I would consider the main discussion (or at least when I started writing this, haha) is the (intended, visceral) reaction to the film (made to sell the artist and not by the artist). The discussion of the work of the artist Ballen is somewhat secondary (or at least, when I started writing this tome).
Regarding the film, I can consider it exploitative BUT without knowing more, I shall mainly speak to the way it is exploiting the viewer in an intended manner. The film is intended to shock. As I said, the film maker is presenting a worldview that harkens back to the Dadist/Surealist filmmakers from the 20’s (with a stop by Herzog in the 60’s). There are clear references to the “film 101” classic
Un Chien Andalou — that whole ‘eyeball’ business as an example:
When I compare the film to Ballen’s work, I find the film to be a bit more heavy handed in the manipulations of my emotions than Ballen’s actual work. As this film is an advertisement for the book, that it presents the subject matter in an edgy manner is not surprising. I am not implying that this film is a misrepresentation of Ballen’s work, but publishers interests are often not fully parallel with the artist. I am sure like most successful artists (which it looks like he is), Ballen knows how his bread is buttered. I would say that the artistry of the filmmaker is inferior to that of the artist it is representing (but it is rare when the reverse holds true). If we are merely talking about the film I find it a bit cliché but it is probably a successful ad for the book.
Now to speak of Ballen. I view him an artist and not a photographer. In the film he calls himself a "photographic artist” — the most accurate term, but if I needed to shorten it I would call him an ‘artist’ not a ‘photographer’. This is not a shit-kick at photography. I view him as an artist firstly as the photographs are a document his art. His work reminds me (both in subject matter and the feeling it gives me) of the work of conceptual/performance artists such as Joseph Beuys and his Coyote stuff
Joseph Beuys w/ CoyoteAs to Ballen's manipulation/exploitation of us the viewer, I like
this quote: "I believe that if a person find my images scary then that individual has been affected in a very positive way. The images have penetrated into the ‘shadow side’ the place of the psyche that we are scared to confront, to come to grips with.” Leon, for me this fits his work into my interpretation of ‘social commentary’
As to whether he is exploiting the people he works with, this is a complex question. The photos are highly highly staged. But if I was forced to “yes/no" answer the question “is he exploiting his subject matter?” I would likely say ‘yes.’ But I am loathe to go down this rabbit hole! I consider it rather hard to photograph people or their environments (in an artistic and/or profound manner) in way that does not have some degree of exploitation and power imbalance. Sorry, but I buy into the concept of the ‘female gaze’ — that destroys 99% of the history of art, haha. I also previously killed a thread by ranting on about ‘ruin porn.’ I am not ready to just where he sits on my ‘exploitation scale’ haha nor do I have the time to figure that one out!
Even when photographs are taken for the purpose of ‘social commentary’ it is difficult to not have sacrificed for the ‘greater good.’ I have experienced these situations not as the sacrificial lamb, but more have seen it happen with various causes that I have been involved in as my time as an 'angry young man.'
The difficulty in photographing people without creating a power imbalance is why I generally take 2 types of photos: 1) Photos of my family which I generally do not share with the world (and are personal and treasured), 2) blurry photos of tree branches with a tiny OOF! :-)
Addendum:
We have talked a lot about him (OK, perhaps I am most responsible for wasting letters, haha) but no actual images of his. this is a random image that I like of his from that book:
