[QUOTE=mhv]Nan Goldin is a Cibachrome version of Diane Arbus,/QUOTE]
I find this comparison to be way off. Arbus's work was compelling, insightful and interesting to look at. Goldin's work for me is just mediocre and way over rated. I've never understood why her work has received such esteem.
Depends how you read it. Color is a way to denature a lot of things in photo. I don't think everything Arbus did was genius either.
Originally Posted by mhv
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
For those who view photographic art as only to be employed in depicting things of beauty, there is no doubt that Goldins work will not resonate.
For those who view photographic art as depicting some segment of the human condition or experience, then Goldins work does resonate because she is not a voyeuristic observer. It is through her immersion into the dynamics of what she portrays that she claims and obtains legitimacy for her imagery.
Photographic art if it is only relegated to the realm employed for the portrayal of what we deem to be beautiful will miss the boat by miles.
I just googled her name (under the images option) and I'm speechless. This stuff looks like porn, and bad porn at that. There might be one or two environmental portraits/documentary work shot in there (Pyotr takin his aids something or another), but... I dunno, I don't get it. One day I'll understand the "art scene," I guess.
Just a quick follow up on my previous post, I looked at some of her work in a couple of museum websites, and not all of it is porn-type stuff. Still unimpressive, in my opinion.
I agree that there is some merit in showing diverse aspects of the human condition, but that alone does not make it good work. Lately I have come to believe that in order for an image to be good, it must address 3 criteria: Message, Design, and Craft. I think that a great image will have a strong message, great desing, and it will be technically strong. A good image can excell in 2 of 3 or be ok in all three. If you only address one of them, though, the image will most likely be mediocre.
Of course, this is just a quick and dirty way of evaluating... I have also lately come to believe that any all or nothing effort in demarcation (good vs bad, art vs non art, etc...) is doomed for failure from the start. But you know what I mean.
Anyway, I digress, and I apoligize if this is seen as a thread-hijack.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I think there was a similar thread with similar opinions a year or two ago...
I've actually seen one of her prints since then, and it hasn't raised my opinion of her.
She apears to be stuck in a time warp as a 70's New York artist. No one has told her that meeting a gay person is no longer an "experience". In her world only cool artist types have sex, while the rest of us dream of being part of that exlusive world (sort of Sex and the City with more drugs).
The 70's is over. Those 15 minutes are LONG past, and artists photographing each other being "outrageous" (by their definition), and dysfunctional is just incestuous and ego driven.
On the contrary - it is through her immersion that any legitimacy is replaced by contrivance and ego. The scenes exist because she creates them. There is no authenticity when her life is a construction designed to further her "art".
Originally Posted by Donald Miller
Looks to me like a writer who can't write. She doesn't photograph very well either.
Anyone know of any books by worthwhile art historians that not only catalogue art's history, but also explain how, most particularly in the "modern" era, work gets to be considered great? Or at least notable? What little I've observed suggests that a strong personality, a powerful "network" and some down home aggressiveness doesn't hurt on the part of the artist or whoever is representing them but it would be unfair to extend that observation very far without concrete evidence.
Also, I need to add that every week I get emails from Photo-eye offering books and prints by photographers that seem to run the gamut from great to abyssmal and yet all are being represented commercially by Photo-eye at least to the extent that Photo-eye is offering their work. How does that happen?
With your first paragraph, I think you have answered your own question. (BTW, I do agree with you.) Now, if you want to muck it up with facts....
Photo-eye sells books on photography. They have to appeal to all photographers by offering all types of books. That's why they offer all types of books. How does it happen. One. Publish a book. Two. Ask Photo-eye to offer it on their web site. While greatly simplified, I do believe that's what is done.