On artdaily today –
I was looking at a photograph by John Divola – As Far As I Could Get (R02F33), 10 seconds, 1996-7. Pigment print, 60 x 40 in.
I don’t know how he produced it, but the idea of putting the camera on a tripod with delayed action and then running as fast as you can into the scene quite appeals to me as the basis of an interesting series of images. Do others think that is perhaps what he was doing?
I don't know myself but sure is intersting.
The series As Far As I Could Get (1996–2010), five works of which are included in the LACMA exhibition, has Divola once again engaging with the natural environment, but this time in a more performative vein. Divola positioned his camera on a tripod, set the timer for ten seconds, and then ran straight into the established frame. At one level, this was a completely dispassionate endeavor. On another level, because the resulting pictures depict a man in a landscape, not in a controlled experimental setting, the viewer cannot suppress a frisson of physical and emotional tension. The works engage the viewer with the natural landscape―a landscape altered by human presence and staged to serve as a theater for creative activity.
More Information: http://artdaily.com/news/65487/Colla...n#.UlYbheBG2uE
Copyright © artdaily.org[/URL]
It clearly states how he makes it, in the article... does the above quote from AgX link answer your question?... also not to criticize, but i feel it lacking... specifically it doesn't speak to me. I don't feel like questioning the scene, nor do i feel it brings me in (but then again, i'm a bit turpid).
My question is, what about it attracted you to it?
I'm not sure, but perhaps it's the thought of running away from your own creation and at the same time being part of it and at a moment you can no longer control, or even know precisely when. A sort of introspective zen photograph (if that makes any sense).
Originally Posted by mesantacruz
I think that a lot of art is as much about the process as it is about the finished product. In this instance, looking at the finished image without any knowledge of the process employed, I’d rather like it, but not consider it to be an amazing image. The addition of the knowledge of process enhances my appreciation of the image, and elevates it closer to amazing, but for me, in this instance, the gap is still quite large.
This is interesting. He's running away from photography's limitations -time and subject - in a panicked creative anxiety! I can understand where this work comes from.
Basically copying something Misrach did back in the 70's, when they were both neophytes to the art world, and when Divola himself was technically probably the worst color printer to ever disgrace gallery walls, or to vandalize the landscape.
Probably not a pigment print either, but a misnomer for an inkjet.
So Drew, you didn't like his Zuma Beach series?
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
I thought they were interesting, but perhaps not something on which to hang a whole career. But what do I know? I believe he is fortunate to be included with the Southern California '60's- '70's light-space-performance artists that have become such a sensation in the last few years. He certainly fits the conceptual model, but again, I don't think his work has the weight of many of his contemporaries.