Photos by Bechers
So, I didn’t die. In fact, I lived. And with life I walked over to the Kunsthalle Wien to be utterly disappointed. No it’s not a giant hall full of vaginas, it’s just a damn art museum. It’s currently photography month of some such madness and who should it be but our old friend Thomas Ruff (mentioned earlier on this blog) with a no holds barred retrospective of his stuff. Overall it was pretty boring, but there were some nice details. Downstairs there was an exhibition of portraiture which was even less interesting. Here are some notes on Thomas Ruff:
- Pleasantly surprised by his interest in good modern architecture although because of his having been taught by the Bechers I shouldn’t have been. He has worked with Herzog and De Meuron and has also done a series on Luis de van der Rohe. I’d love to do some architectural or furniture photography. Go around the world getting decently paid to take photos of buildings that are pretty, what’s not to like?
- Very moved by the systematic work of the Bechers. The photos they took have great tonality and I’d love to have been able to see some larger prints. The book they had on the table reproduced the photos in a tiny size (necessarily because the first thing to notice is their comprehensiveness). The objects they took photos of look like they flew in from outerspace. Also, I liked how they recotextualised the various pieces with their own kind giving them a new, more focused meaning of what they are. I liked the straightness, the facing up to it, and approachability of their work. The straight on perspective is highly modern and I really liked the aesthetic. I wonder if they used a tilt shift lens, or used the twistability of the view camera. Need to research them more, and see who has good holdings of their prints. Probably Dusseldorf.
- Ruff’s colour prints are just beautiful. You want to touch them. But I guess it’s no better than what a good magazine prints these days. They important thing is to print and get my own work printed as large as it’ll go and still look highly detailed.
- Large format prints did not give the shock of endless detail that I expected and craved from him. Disappointingly blurred, and hazy up close. An interestingly reified experience a couple of steps back. Would prefer a bit smaller (1m) but with more detail.
- Need to read up on the New Objectivity. Bechers, Blossefelt, Dusseldorf School.
- He had some very cool Stereoscope pictures which were fun to view. Diorama like perspective but with good detail. You look down on a box with a mirror that combines two pictures at 45 degrees to your eye which have been taken slightly apart to reflect the nature of the distance between our two eyes. I want to do some work like this for sure.
- The portraits were not inspiring. Even though they are printed large they don’t have the punch of the detail that mine do. It’s not about seeing them large, but in detail, seeing something you usually can’t. His people did not have any personality. He didn’t open them up.
- His double printed portraits were slightly interesting but not in the sheer numbers that he has printed them in.
- He had some crappy designer space stuff that was boring that took up the main hall. None of his jpeg stuff was there.
Then I went downstairs to the portraiture stuff they had downstairs with keen professional interest. Mostly disappointed with what was there but got to see quite a number of the current practitioners. Roger Ballen was a highlight.
- Didn’t like Mapplethrope’s campness. The gay fuck. But one of his pictures of an old woman (Alice Neel 1984) was good.
- Tina Barney’s work was interesting for using medium format to capture everyday family action.
- Nan Goldin’s horribly dated 80s colours.
- Rineke Dijkstra had an interesting shot of a woman bleeding from her cunt whilst holding her baby. She works hard to be boring though. Succeeds.
- Tillmans was boring. Gets trust from the subject though. But he feels that’s enough and doesn’t really try to do anything interesting beyond that. I’m really not interested in letting people ‘reveal’ themselves in a photograph. It’s a mute medium which can only show surfaces. Eyes are eyes and can only express a hundredth of what’s going on in someone’s head. Much better to try to capture the whole face without the person knowing. Portraits are nearly always boring. Except my one’s of people you’ve never seen the likes of before.
- Had the thought: ‘What is needed know in this time of plasticity and photoshop is pitiless detail. We have the technology, and our culture needs it.’
- Roger Ballen is amazingly funny. Reminds me of a non-jewish Arbus. So not taking him seriously. And so taking all of us very seriously.
- Bernhardt Fuchs is a crappy colourful copy of Sanders (actually most people seemed to be copying Sanders, need to chase down a book on him). Sartarolist does a better job than Fuchs. Off course Sartorilist doesn’t give a crap about the person.
- Beat Struili is a bad street photographer. Doesn’t shoot from the viewfinder and shoots with a long lens. Really shitty compositions. Nice colours though. No tension in the photos. I’m so much better than these people. When will they realise? When I show them I guess.
- Anthony Gayton did some gay but interesting copies of pictures from the 19th C.
- Lost a bit of faith. It seems the standard is really low in art photography.
Posted 2 years ago
