On the Web: March 2006 Archives
Archinect has published an interview with photographer David Maisel by BLDGBLOG author Geoff Manaugh.
For the most part, I’m interested in landscape images not merely for what they look like, but for what they make us feel, and for what they might represent metaphorically. I’ve also wanted my pictures to take the viewer to places and sites they’ve never seen before, with a resulting sense of alienation or displacement. I'm less interested in being warm and fuzzy than in being harsh and cruel! [laughter] Those possibilities don’t exist when looking at the familiar.
Maisel's Black Maps project is being shown at the Southest Museum of Photography in Daytona. If you're on spring break, you might want to swing by.
Through June 23rd at Southeast Museum of Photography
Building 100
Daytona Beach Community College
1200 W International Speedway Blvd
Daytona Beach, FL
(386) 506-4475
Found an interesting photography blog via Chelsea Art Galleries, Matt Niebuhr's "Intersecting Images". I don't see a heck of a lot of introspection on most photoblogs (they're frequently photo-a-day and that's it) but Matt's done some good writing and thinking about how his own work sits in the larger scheme of photography. "What is Becher-like" is a sample post in this vein.
Modern Art Notes has the run down on the expanded Getty Photography Center, 7,000 square feet of exhibition space scheduled to open in October. Cool for the Angelenos.
A few days back I posted a bit about artist statements. The topic has been picked up elsewhere, in relation to some contest submission guidance from Eliot Shepard. This was set off by comments on Conscientious (and a follow-up post) which bleed into "what makes a good photograph" territory. And finally, more interesting commentary at Signal v. Noise.
In the wake of the recent Steichen sale, Art Info has posted a state of the photography market. Most of the article concerns price trends, but then contradictorily ends with admonitions not to buy for investment reasons.
And what's up with this ridiculous comment?
“If a photographer is good, there’s less likelihood they’re going to make a terrible photograph, while even if a painter is good, it’s pretty likely that every now and then they’re going to make a terrible painting.”
Are you kidding me? That's a circular and illogical statement if I ever saw one. A good photographer is, by definition, one that always makes good photographs, but a good painter is one that mostly makes good paintings? Huh? At heart, I do believe photography is inherently superior to other media, but we can be a little more thoughtful about why. (I'll be thoughtful later, I've got a lot of work to do.)
(via A View From the Edge..., owner of the above quote.)
ARTnews' wide ranging article on the state of art photography opens with a description of the death of chemical-based photography. With the loss of commercial sources of materials for making analog camera-based photographs, silver halide will soon become an alternative process alongside other obsolete processes like the daguerreotype.
I hate artist's statements. It's ridiculous that an artist should be expected to explicitly explain what's behind a piece of work. Isn't that a job for the viewer to figure out on their own? Joerg has pointed out that they are frequently more than a little contrived if not disingenous.
Apparently artists have had a hard time talking about themselves for a long, long time.
