TWENTYSIX GASOLINE STATIONS

My random thought. B&W works well for most things, but not gas stations.:whistling:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael R 1974

I am a big fan of Ruscha's artwork, and it seems his photography is not very well known as it is overshadowed by his paintings. But that book and other works like "Every Building on the Sunset Strip" were influential to people like Shore and to non-movements like the New Topographics. I love Shore's work too, as well as George Tice's Urban Landscapes.

For me, there doesn't have to be any kind of "purpose" or underlying message. These photographs can simply be about a place in time. I never get tired of looking at them.

---

Oh yeah, Michael, I agree with you about Tice; his Patterson, New Jersey book is one of the most-viewed books in my library.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hatchetman

My random thought. B&W works well for most things, but not gas stations.:whistling:

---

You might want to look at what Walker Evans did with b&w on that subject; you might reconsider.

À propos of Evans, here is the gas station picture of his I had in mind:

http://www.masters-of-photography.co...as_station.jpg

Even the casual eye would be remiss not to see some similar formal construction between Ruscha and Evans. That's the thing with "banality" : you can never REALLY be banal, there will always be something, whether it's composition or historical record, or something else, that will grab you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michel Hardy-Vallée

À propos of Evans, here is the gas station picture of his I had in mind:

Even the casual eye would be remiss not to see some similar formal construction between Ruscha and Evans. That's the thing with "banality" : you can never REALLY be banal, there will always be something, whether it's composition or historical record, or something else, that will grab you.

---

I think he may have had even better gas station photos, but that one was about 10 miles from me so a natural favorite of mine.

Ruscha must have been informed by this:

Attachment 52485

I have no objection to the banal as 'art'. What I'm upset with is the corollary notion that the beautiful isn't art. And then there's the issue of what works in a book vs what works on the wall. I'm just gonna take a nap! ;-)

Who ever said the beautiful isn't art? I hope that wasn't interpreted as being implied in my posts to this thread.

I don't think it was said, but jovo assumed it as a corollary.

I love the low-tech aspect of it. And the fact that with "low" technology he's referring to "high" technology, the petroleum-based economy, car culture, etc.

Just saw an original copy in the MOMA a few weeks ago. Believe me, picture quality is low...which goes to show, DPI don't mean nothing.

Go Ed!