You have revealed the essence. I consider it performance art, not photography. There are a lot of these type of projects where the real art (if it can be defined as such) is the creation of a situation or structure and photography is just a small part of it.
Maybe it's like the "anti-Cristo", instead of wrapping things, he unwraps things.
Do I hear an echo here? I think we all reached the performance conclusion (cf. my own post...)
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
...The pictures of a thousand naked bodies we're most familar with could be those taken at the liberation of the concentration camps; some of Tunick's arguably share many pictorial similarities with these. As to what is the meaning of such echoes, I will leave each one to their interpretations, but I think there is some intent to revert the meaning of such pictures to something less horrible...
This is exactly what Tunick's staging reminded me of when I first saw one of the documentaries.
I also don't recall hearing him vocalize such a noble intent for these images. Rather, from viewing the film it struck me that he was driven solely by a quest for celebrity and fame.
Arseholes, an photographic exhibition by Lee-Anne Richards was exhibited at the Photo Technical Exhibition Space, Sydney from 1-29 September 2001. The subject matter? You guessed it!
Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.
I was recently thinking of the documentary "naked world"...
... My point to this is that in my opinion I dont think work should be elevated to genious status based just on the fact that no one had done it before, even if the technical mastery of medium or the idea itself are nothing special.
Any thoughts ?
Just one, at the moment... "Genius status"??
I don't know of any photograph I've ever seen that I would label (worthy of) "genius status"
I consider Tunick to be a (bad) conceptual artist, rather than a photographer. The reason the quality of the photos that are produced by his work dont matter is that they are more a byproduct of the work; an attempt to record the event (photojournalists dont fall under this category because they dont create the event, they record it). For fine art photographers, the event is the image. Tunick is more in line with artists like Vanessa Beecroft or even Niki Lee.