Thursday, May 17, 2007
Andreas Gursky @ Matthew Marks
Gurskey’s current photography show at Matthew Marks is getting dissed by many people, including Jerry Saltz, who I usually agree with. Above is a photo composite of a Formula 1 pit stop. The charge against Gurskey seems to be “empty formalism.” Some think these photos are too “designed,” trying too hard to mimic abstract painting and have lost that “unpredictable power” that his early work contained. Saltz writes:
“his rigor and criticality have been replaced by grandiosity and theatricality; figures feel frozen; compositions are stagy; structure devolves into carpetlike pattern.”
Well, I don’t totally disagree with this description, but this doesn’t necessarily make it bad art. Most of art history could be described this way. I am suspicious that this kind of criticism is more a reaction to his inflated prices over such a long period of time. I just don’t see the visual problem, I think these things are beautiful. Perhaps I was missing something in his early work, but I think his current show presents wonderful visual scenes that keep me looking. My favorites are when he takes on compositions with simpler shapes. So much art today has stopped being visual, that I can’t hold formalism against anybody. After all, in the end, the only things we can share are formal.
posted by cjagers at 06:01pm
5 Comments Add your own
1. Paddy Johnson | May 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
I have to say it took me a very long time to come up with that post, because I think the works are beautiful too and I like that. I guess I just think some of his earlier photographs were more successful on those terms.
2. cjagers | May 17th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Paddy,
I see your point. I guess I don’t see them as weaker formally. I see them as the same as they ever were - beautiful. I agree that not every piece is a stunner, but I like that he is still trying things. But now we are splitting hairs. I just disagree with Saltz accusation of “empty.” He has always been purely visual, still is, and that is not empty.
3. Evan | May 23rd, 2007 at 11:58 am
I’m looking forward to seeing this show with you!
4. Christopher Jagers »&hellip | June 13th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
[…] Later in Chelsea, I saw the Gurskey show in person, which I defended in an earlier post. However, seeing them in person was not as amazing as I expected it to be. In fact, I was really bothered by how manipulated they looked. The photos were too easy to take apart, and were too collaged looking. So, while I still enjoyed them, I now understand Saltz’s (sp?) criticism. […]
5. John Ferguson | November 9th, 2009 at 5:48 am
I was only recently introduced to Gursky when I visited his exhibition at the Vancouver Art Gallery. Personally his pictures blew me away. I think they are all of the above, but I am fortunate that i am not comparing stages of his career, just looking at beatiful art which also seems to examineat society and what it is doing.
I love his work and as an amateur photographer, I can appreciate the technical difficulties he faces when taking his exposures and the work needed to make these great pictures
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed