Topic: A long, long evening at a small, small photo exhibit

[Francois]

Last night, I went to the inauguration of a photo exhibit at a local gallery. I went mainly because it was early and very close to home. But when I came back with the feeling of having wasted a perfectly good evening (and wasted 4$ on parking)... you know the feeling.

Well, there were 10 large format color photos of people dressed in lab contamination suits roaming around an hydroponic lettuce farm. Composition was awful (read non existant). They were straight color prints (made the traditional way) 50" wide mounted either between Plexiglas or in glassless aluminium frames. The prints in the glassless frames were shiny and often scratched on the surface (they were moving accidents, but still annoying). When looking closely, you could see white dust marks (from enlargement).

When I talked to the girl who made them, she told me she worked with a Linhof in order to get superior quality... And also told me that she never takes more than 2 pictures at a time when she goes on a shoot (should read I got only one film holder and it has only 2 sides like most of them)

Anyways... I also learned the significance of the hydroponic lettuce fields: Once, at the grocery store, while picking up a head of lettuce, she discovered that it perfectly represented her interior... Lets just say my brain's left hemisphere was a bit shaken by the works.

Don't take my word for it, go visit her site http://www.evektremblay.com

All opinions are welcome (and thanks for baring with me... I had to get this off my mind)

[Ron]

I went to the Buia Gallery site and saw the lettuce work  .  I am not a big fan of it or any of her work (per your link).  To me, there is a trend with many using large format cams, doing nothing interesting or functional with it and then having someone else make super large C-prints of sub par work.  Just my opinion.  Oh, I am a stickler for the whole package, too.  Scratches (unintentional of course), poor presentation, etc. is as much a reflection of the artist as the image he or she took. It's shocking to see her resume and the fact she has a book coming out. 

[aboot]

most of what she shoots, to me, is boring and uninteresting... but that's me.  also, i think she does have some composition skills but i'm not sure what prints you saw.  if i went to that show i would've walked out in about 5 minutes... it's just to arty for me and it really doesn't make any sense.  she's on a different plane than me and i can respect that but christ, i wouldn't walk around telling people my insides are made of lettuce.

[Francois]

That's because you haven't seen the picture of the people in contamination suit doing "laser" surgery on a head of lettuce using a big shiny metal cone with a hole in the center    

She also felt the need to say these were "planned shots", as in thinking nobody with a brain wouldn't have noticed the pictures were far from reality at a lettuce farm.

[outofcontxt]

it's just to arty for me and it really doesn't make any sense.

Maybe it's just my bad chest cold talking, but this isn't arty. It's just bad photography. If this was my work I'd be embarrassed to show it. These would have been in the reject pile right off the bat. I know we all have our likes and dislikes. I'm not the biggest fan of conceptual photography but this is among of the worse examples I've ever seen.

[LT]

come on filmwasters - whether we like the pictures it or not isnt really the point.  She is doing her own thing and seemingly doing well along the way.  At least she is using film, geting traditional prints made and exhibiting them.  That's good enough for me.  One person's art is anothers rubbish pile, but you cant say her work is "bad", it's just not what you'd choose to do.

And anything with lazers and lettuces in the same room gets my vote (any chicory or rocket included, or was plain old iceberg?)

[sparx]

Hmmm, good point Leon. Why are we like this with certain peoples 'art'?

I have been guilty of the same thoughts after seeing an exhibition that had been awarded several thousand pounds funding to travel round Norfolk and display in village halls, market towns etc. The concept was photos inspired by poetry which were then shown side-by-side.

It would be polite to say I was 'disappointed' with what I saw and similar comments to those above passed through my mind as I walked round the hall (though possibly with the odd expletive thrown in).

The reason I felt so let down (and a little bit conned) by the exhibit was because, as someone with an interest in photography I felt the images had no soul, no emotion and were technically poor. The whole affair was very contrived. Very 'Oh look at me, aren't I so arty interpreting this poetry into images you mere commoners don't have the depth to comprehend', but without any effort put into the proceedings to actually achieve that goal.

It felt I was looking at work by someone with minimal talent who doesn't realise it, think the average 'X Factor' contestant and you'd be close.

I understand that different people have different tastes and there is plenty of 'art' I don't like or even get (most of my sisters work actually) but I can appreciate the talent, the ideas, the vision that went into a piece if it's there. Some people though, just seem to be taking the p***!

An ex-boss of mine who was an art snob and totally feckless surprised me when reckoned he'd seen a particular picture I showed him and had heard of the artist who produced it. Even more impressive was when he went into some depth about the statement the artist was trying to make about his childhood or some such bull.

I had knocked it up in about ten minutes on Photoshop the previous evening.

[aboot]

art is basically the power of doing... a collection of rules for doing anything constructively.  but there are times when you go to a show and you honestly wonder if this is truely coming from the artist's heart or if it is something that is contrived or something that she is doing to impress someone else, something that she thinks everyone else will think is an impressive piece of art and at the same time it goes above everyone elses head... that kind of thing just doesn't work for me and i don't think it's real art.  i mean, that's only my opinion but when people do that, i don't believe they are making honest art. 

[aboot]

one other thing... i am not bemoaning the fact that she has gotten some fame through her photography.  more power to her... i'm sure she was persistant and stayed focused throughout her career and that is why she is where she's at right now.  i celebrate her fame... it should let everyone here know that they could get there too.  just stay persistant...

[Francois]

If this was my work I'd be embarrassed to show it. These would have been in the reject pile right off the bat.

I must admit I've seen better works at other museums.

And anything with lasers and lettuces in the same room gets my vote (any chicory or rocket included, or was plain old iceberg?)

It was only one of the pictures... and sorry Leon, they were just ordinary Iceberg... and the laser beam was a fake device... like all the rest (you didn't even see the beam, she had to say "this is a laser". Just imagine if George Lucas had a big voiceover during Star Wars saying "these are laser beams you don't see on the screen" or "the guys fighing with broomsticks are actually using limited beams of pure plasma"... it would have definitely broken the spell).

It would be polite to say I was disappointed with what I saw and similar comments to those above passed through my mind as I walked round the hall (though possibly with the odd expletive thrown in).

The reason I felt so let down (and a little bit conned) by the exhibit was because, as someone with an interest in photography I felt the images had no soul, no emotion and were technically poor. The whole affair was very contrived. Very 'Oh look at me, aren't I so arty interpreting this poetry into images you mere commoners don't have the depth to comprehend', but without any effort put into the proceedings to actually achieve that goal.

I too felt very disappointed. Photo exhibits are so rare around here, I might have had bigger expectations. I also know that if I had taken pictures of a similar subject, it would have been drastically different. I couldn't feel the soul of the images. The photos were supposed to tell a story in a deconstructed way... I just didn't get the story. Usually, a picture isn't supposed to need words. This wasn't the case. (But taken separately, they might have more "meaning"... though I'm not sure)

but there are times when you go to a show and you honestly wonder if this is truly coming from the artist's heart or if it is something that is contrived or something that she is doing to impress someone else, something that she thinks everyone else will think is an impressive piece of art and at the same time it goes above everyone else's head... that kind of thing just doesn't work for me

Having worked part time at an art gallery for the last 4 years, I am starting to think there is something hidden below most of the art that I have seen in the last few years. You have art that sells in galleries. You have art that is shown in museums. But you start having art that shows in galleries but isn't designed to sell. As strange as it may seem (and I will say things that would make very angry many people who's exhibits I've seen) this is all related to the money issue.

The gallery for which I work has a mandate to have new artists better known, not to make sales. If you expose in enough places, you might get into a few group exhibits or juried exhibitions (by putting stuff in your CV). Once you have managed to do this, you're on the right path for easy money. Money that comes not from sales, but from bursaries. And, if you can claim that you have the recognition of peers, you have an income tax break. At the place she was exhibiting, they give out every year a 3000can$ bursary to a professional artist with has less than 8 years of practice...

An ex-boss of mine who was an art snob and totally feckless surprised me when reckoned he'd seen a particular picture I showed him and had heard of the artist who produced it. Even more impressive was when he went into some depth about the statement the artist was trying to make about his childhood or some such bull.

This is part of the plan. People are not necessarily interested in the artwork itself, but more in the personality of the people who make the art. To bring attention to your personality, there are only two choices. If you're the extroverted type, you have to be flamboyant. If you're the opposite, the only thing left is to have people think you're weird (which is somehow related to very creative in people's mind).

[al]

This would be a good point for everyone to sit back and listen to "Sensitive Artist" by King Missile.

Whatever your viewpoint, it always puts things into perspective 

[LT]

Sensitive Artist
by John S Hall
King Missile (dog fly religion) _Fluting On The Hump_ Shimmy Disc 1987

I am a sensitive artist...

I am a sensitive artist.
Nobody understands me because I am so deep.
In my work I make allusions to books that nobody else has read,
Music that nobody else has heard,
And art that nobody else has seen.
I can't help it
Because I am so much more intelligent
And well-rounded
Than everyone who surrounds me.

I stopped watching tv when I was six months old
Because it was so boring and stupid
And started reading books
And going to recitals
And art galleries.
I don't go to recitals anymore
Because my hearing is too sensitive
And I don't go to art galleries anymore
Because there are people there
And I can't deal with people
Because they don't understand me.

I stay home
Reading books that are beneath me,
And working on my work,
Which no one understands

I am sensitive...
I am a sensitive artist


yes, yes yes al - very good 

[Francois]

Not much more to say... except that I haven't herd this song before...
(Makes for quite different than my usual playlist...)

[lauraburlton]

Hmmm, the lettuce work was not my thing but some of her other work seemed pretty good at a glance. I have definately seen worse. Actually I went to a photo show this Thursday that I thought was the pits. I only went as it was put on by the cultural arts council of Houston and I am trying to get a grant but this show was not my thing either. It was a group show and the subject matter was dancers. Most of it just looked like stuff you would see in the newspaper advertising a particular ballet. Not very interesting in any sense ( according to me -but I am sure all of the dancers there found it fascinating- to each his own) I guess if you are interested in a subject or technique it makes the art better for you ...hmmm... but I still thought it reeked

[Ed Wenn]

Team, the positives here are that galleries are still exhibiting photography, a load of us are going to see what's on or taking part in some way ourselves and - like it or loathe it - what we see there generates debate. It can sometimes be infuriating and painful, but generally debate is a good thing and any sort of debate helps me understand better what it is I want to do with photography or what I want to get out of it.

So, thanks for this thread, thanks for taking pictures, thanks for putting on shows and thanks for going to them.

p.s.
I didn't visit the lettuce link yet. I'll save it for a rainy day.

 

[Francois]

No problem Ed.
But for the best lettuce photography I have ever seen, I just needed to open my weekly grocery store flyer 
And they present it next to photos of potatoes (yummy) 

I do can think about a few positive things about the exhibit. It was shot on film. It was printed in a traditional way. There was lots of people at the inauguration. The pictures were laminated between sheets of Plexi (how do they do that?). They had free mineral water (and white wine, red wine, and beer for those who like this stuff). They had a place to put your coat with hangers. It was put together by a girl  . There were 2 girls working at the gallery  . And I somehow feel better just thinking about it that way  (sadly, there are no Italians in my family to justify this Molto Macho comment )

[outofcontxt]

OK, maybe I was a tad harsh. I told you I had a bad cold... ;-) Anyone who knows me also knows I come in one version: highly opinioned and highly caffinated... ;-) Let just say that her 'muse' did not speak to me. Or was mute. Or incommunicado. 'Nuf said...

[lauraburlton]

OK, maybe I was a tad harsh. I told you I had a bad cold... ;-) Anyone who knows me also knows I come in one version: highly opinioned and highly caffinated... ;-) Let just say that her 'muse' did not speak to me. Or was mute. Or incommunicado. 'Nuf said...

hahaha
I guess I am kind of spoiled here in Houston, stinky and flat she may be, but we do have a pretty big art scene and lots of galleries and museums that showcase photography so there is something for everyone. I see lots of shows that dont speak to me personally but I am glad they are being put on in any case as it is good to be able to pick and choose .

[aboot]

I see lots of shows that dont speak to me personally but I am glad they are being put on in any case as it is good to be able to pick and choose .

very true and honest thoughts... thanks!

[JOhn Reeves]

A local gallery, here in Lawrence, announced this week that they will be closing their doors in February because they aren't able to make rent. We'll be down to just one commercial fine art gallery after February. There are other galleries at the Lawrence Art Center and Spencer Museum with a handful of artisan galleries, but that's it.

I'd like to reiterate some of Ed & Laura's thoughts. It is often difficult to find work that arouses your own inspiration and interests, but you have got to respect the efforts of the artist and their willingness to share the work. And you gotta appreciate that a space is showing work - especially work that may be challanging or unconventional.

Support your local scene. Go to the openings. Buy work if you're able. Participate.

[TonyP]

I wonder how her work will be perceived in a 100 or so years.

My thoughts come from when I worked in health care and was researching the background of one of our residents that worked in a hospital that was just down the road from where I live. Being intrigued I visited the local photo archive and found a picture from the early 1900s that showed the front of the buildings when they first became a hospital after being a workhouse. Across the road was the fields that provided food for the hospital and the vegetables growing were rows and rows of lettuces.

That picture stuck in my mind and still comes into my thoughts as I walk past the remaining old hospital buildings. At the time it was shot I’m sure no-one cared about it, but now in a historical context it has great significance.

Sorry for the long posting.

[db]

I know what you mean, except that this work is not reportage. They weren't taken to document 'lettuce growing in the early 21st century'. They are ''contrived'' to explore a relationship between this person's psyche and the natural world (or whatever the artists's statement might have said) so I think in time they will say more about the way we use art and photography in our post post modern age.. for better or worse!

For the record I have no problem with the images, as little as I can see on the web. They don't exactly toast my toes from a photographic point of view, but their success lies in how well they communicate to you from a conceptual point of view. (or not) Good discussion anyway 

I wonder how her work will be perceived in a 100 or so years.

My thoughts come from when I worked in health care and was researching the background of one of our residents that worked in a hospital that was just down the road from where I live. Being intrigued I visited the local photo archive and found a picture from the early 1900s that showed the front of the buildings when they first became a hospital after being a workhouse. Across the road was the fields that provided food for the hospital and the vegetables growing were rows and rows of lettuces.

That picture stuck in my mind and still comes into my thoughts as I walk past the remaining old hospital buildings. At the time it was shot I’m sure no-one cared about it, but now in a historical context it has great significance.

[FrankB]

And anything with lasers and lettuces in the same room gets my vote (any chicory or rocket included, or was plain old iceberg?)

It was only one of the pictures... and sorry Leon, they were just ordinary Iceberg...

Ah. A purist.

 

[TonyP]

Yes I see what you mean I guess they do look more like record snaps of a school project, but on the other hand, maybe we a not on the same wavelength as the photographer on this series 

I know what you mean, except that this work is not reportage. They weren't taken to document 'lettuce growing in the early 21st century'. They are ''contrived'' to explore a relationship between this person's psyche and the natural world (or whatever the artists's statement might have said) so I think in time they will say more about the way we use art and photography in our post post modern age.. for better or worse!

For the record I have no problem with the images, as little as I can see on the web. They don't exactly toast my toes from a photographic point of view, but their success lies in how well they communicate to you from a conceptual point of view. (or not) Good discussion anyway 

I wonder how her work will be perceived in a 100 or so years.

My thoughts come from when I worked in health care and was researching the background of one of our residents that worked in a hospital that was just down the road from where I live. Being intrigued I visited the local photo archive and found a picture from the early 1900s that showed the front of the buildings when they first became a hospital after being a workhouse. Across the road was the fields that provided food for the hospital and the vegetables growing were rows and rows of lettuces.

That picture stuck in my mind and still comes into my thoughts as I walk past the remaining old hospital buildings. At the time it was shot I’m sure no-one cared about it, but now in a historical context it has great significance.