Painting / Photo Battle #1 [ in the spirit of the “photo battle” ]

In the spirit of Amy Stein’s “photo battle” series…  Shawn Records caught the bug too… ( comparisons / contrasts – I find sometimes make the most thought provoking combinations – sometimes…)  I decided to begin my own series of comparisons.  Many times I’ve come across photographs or paintings which for some reason or another – remind me of another photo / painting.   It’s not so much that I like one or the other images – or that I think one is better than the other – it’s more about seeing the two together and figuring out something about it from there on…

So here it goes with   “Painting / Photo battle #1: – the orifices – a face off of sorts.

Mund / Mouth (Brigitte Bardot’s Lips) - Gerhard Richter

Mund / Mouth (Brigitte Bardot’s Lips) – 1963  –  Gerhard Richter
Oil on canvas

Liz No. 3, 2006 - Jason Horowitz

Liz No. 3, 2006 – Jason Horowitz

From Jason Horowitz statement:

The work is an on-going exploration of people and the human form. The images reveal a hyper-realistic amount of detail about the subject and explore the relationship between photographic representation and painterly abstraction, the formal elements in tension with the emotional content of the subject matter. The flesh depicted is simultaneously seductive and repulsive. Shot with the same ‘glamour’ lighting set-up used for fashion images, these photographs subvert that process to look at what is real rather than ideal. Larger than life, these images become a vehicle for looking deeply at one’s self and others.

Blue Sky Gallery is currently exhibiting a selection of prints from a series of  photographs by Jason Horowitz called  “Corpus”. I attended the gallery talk this past Saturday which has become a favorite of mine – to hear a bit more about the work offered up by the artist.  There were a couple of interesting comments – one was on technique and one was actually about the photographs – both of which resonated with me.

First – the inevitable question “what camera / film did you use…”  of which I was completely happy to hear Horowitz rephrased the question to a more poignant point – which is that technique (process) matters in so far as the final product (the image) presents what the artist was after – in this case – it’s about presenting “hyper real detail” (and more) of the physical surface of the subject – oh and if it matters to you, it was all digital – a Canon 5d – printed on an ink-jet by Horowitz himself… So the “how” only matter’s in that he manages to get what he’s after.  So much for the film snobbery angle…

Second – the other question / statement from the crowd was about how the images  (more here) seemed to be rather ugly (to one particular person anyway). Most of the images elicited a response: “like a car wreck where you can’t look away” – sometimes just short of disgust.  I’d guess this was probably one of the best responses you could imagine getting from the crowd about your work on the wall.  If what you see in the images is disgusting – are you able to ask yourself – why?  Is the “real” human body beautiful anymore – or only that imaginary idealized image? What parts of your own body would you feel comfortable submitting to this sort of scrutiny?  How strong is your own self image.  I think for me, mostly I felt very self conscious in front of these images – who wouldn’t?  For me anyway – Horowitz’s work seemed to achieve a measure of success – There’s something at both ends of the spectrum working here – the general (fragment of a body – anybody) yet very, very specific – this person – that skin – this hair – that mole on this skin fold…   I think that’s why the response was widely shared – we could all connect at some level with the images in front of us.

It’s worth a look on your own time in person to see what you think if you get the chance – the full effect of the images is not able to be had by seeing them reproduced on the web.

Bruce No 2. - Jason Horowitz

Bruce No. 2, 2006 – Jason Horowitz

So to close the loop (on this navel gazing exercise anyway) -the initial impulse to consider the painting (itself  beautiful / ugly) a completely different sort of constructed image -( More on the assumed subject of Richter’s painting – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigitte_Bardot) -is to consider that powerful thing which is truly a unique quality to photography. Simply this: The camera is capable in the right hands to allow you to see much more than you might think and you need not try to escape the facts in front of the lens – in this case the all the better to embrace those facts.

Richter’s Atlas and other things pictured…


(cover image)
Gerhard Richter: Atlas (Hardcover)
by Helmut Friedel (Editor), Gerhard Richter (Author)

Browsed through a copy today over at Powell’s – Looking forward to receiving my copy and giving it a more than leisurely browse. Richter’s Atlas is a glimpse into his process of collection, selection and cataloguing of images (The atlas is a lot of found amateur and personal photography, news clipping images, musings…) that may or maynot be transformed, incorporated and/or appropriated (ultimately) into Richter’s painting or printing process. I’m interested to see the photographs that are put into the service of painting – his way of looking.


Diana1967
200 cm X 190 cm
Oil on canvas
Catalogue Raisonné: 155

It’s got me thinking about when a photograph becomes a “sketch tool” recording a thought – providing a distance – a chance to evaluate light / composition. Rather than when it might become an independent art piece – an end in itself…


Pamela Anderson: Hollywood Nights
Image: David LaChapelle – from Artists and Prostitutes

And available by way of Powells …to get on with the cycle of images …your copy of David LaChapelle: Artists and Prostitutes, awaits…. a recent interesting post on Alec Soth’s blog…. it must be springtime… It does feel rather carnal – and that’s something anyone can relate too after a long cold winter. I am rather put off by the cartoons of photographs – I guess I don’t so much the in your face work of LaChapelle, in so far as it is eye candy… and tastes good only briefly. I wonder what the shelf life will be? Time will tell I speculate.

Reflecting on self – finding a voice on ideas / craftsmanship

What about “style” I wonder… (ramble?)

How does it relate to determining your voice and articulating that voice and allowing others to find it – to be recognizable. It also has me thinking about how other artists look at themselves – through the democratic machine – the camera…. More about idea and technique (or maybe craft?). What role does style play?


Self-Portrait Three Times
24.1.90 Oil on Photograph
Gerhard Richter

Suppose a painter appropriates photography – to loosely record an image of self – three times. Is it a photograph (or just a narcissistic snapshot) or a painting? What might it say ? Richter’s self-portrait is more than just a photograph – not really a snapshot – after all. It does more than merely record. What transforms it ? The image or the stuff of the image (oil paint) ? Is it pretty? What is it that makes the object interesting to me – What provokes me to think.

In Richter’s self-portrait above – I visually I go back and forth into the image (the realness represented by the photo – yet recorded three times over) and then back to the physicality of the surface and the actions of the artist recorded at yet another time of the artist’s intention – an application of tool and oils… a layered time record. I think Richter represents both idea and craft in the image and I like it for that depth. But it’s all about the artist and his struggle to justify his painting right? But the craft is sort of only represented – not really embodied in the particular portrait example.

Consider another artist:
Chuck Close - Big Self-Portrait, 1968
Chuck Close b. 1940
Big Self-Portrait, 1968
acrylic on canvas
107 1/2 in. x 83 1/2 in.

Suppose an artist appropriates the photographic self portrait in a photo-realism sense -(beware ideology of “isms”) Close makes it his own I think by the fact that he painted it by hand – his hand – as opposed to the machine image – (and he does it again and again in different media over a long , long time )- but the image tries hard to be real – really real. It tries to be like a photograph record. But what is recorded here? Where do you go when you look at an image like this – where does it take you – admiration of craftsmanship – no doubt. Appreciation of artistic labor – and as I become more aware of this artists “body of work” a certain tenacity and an appreciation for change (physical aging / changes) over time. It’s old news, but I enjoyed looking again over the interview – “Navigating the Self” associated with Chuck Close’s show “Chuck Close: Self-Portraits 1967-2005” – at the Walker last year… Chuck Close closes the interview with:

. . . I think if I had been one of those smooth-faced pretty boys, I would
not have done a lot of self-portraits. I don’t think it would have been very
interesting.

Here’s a link: Chuck Close Opening Day Talk at the opening of his Retrospective at the Walker Art Center.
This melding of photography / painting is of more interest to me in particular than the question of projecting an image over a canvas to assist in producing an image – but an interesting post is presented here – on Alex Soth’s archived blog… provoking how one decides upon a content of the image – basics – I suppose on composition / content. Maybe I just don’t get it…About “style” and “categorization” by photographers and by lovers of photography – for me anyway – what seems to come of this is nothing more than galvanizing me on my opinion that it is good to avoid a recognizable style (at some point) but this probably puts at risk a weak reception of work. Just how important it is to be recognizable and therefore more saleable? Very important problem and a question – if you are trying to support yourself through your art. On one hand this is troubling. It parallels the problem of educational pedigree as a ticket to serious consideration. I wonder about questionable motivations. I guess I have a thing for amateur works.

A sense of voice is important to develop – but determining when that voice is your own is excruciatingly difficult – and who gets to decide anyway? The buying public? How easy it is to fall into a mimicry – style and all. It takes a lot to figure out a direction – and to make it your own.
Perhaps my own view is a warped and narrow view – but that’s where I am at the moment. I think finding a tone in your voice is key – but how to do that? I hope to move beyond questions of style – maybe it’s just a matter of accepting style as a given (by others) and working with it as kind of constraint. It is just a matter of doing the work.
1981
Oil on linen
Gerhard Richter
© 2006 The Contemporary Art Institute
Maybe Richter has found a way to keep from getting caught up in style – by showing how irrelevant it is in his work – Something to think about.

Spiegel
1986
200 cm X 180 cm
Gerhard Richter
© 2006 The Contemporary Art Institute
Maybe it’s a good exercise to try an make a self portrait ?