“Evasive and mysterious, Gustav Gustafsson, is a talented young Swede who does not abide by scholastic philosophy. Maybe this is the key to understanding his work, a photographic investigation which is driven by its significance rather than technique, which ironically bends a certain Scandinavian tradition. His project on “Reduced Visibility” is probably the most striking example of this. Amidst the white perfection his pictures are indirect portrayals which assert themselves not so much for what they are but for what they evoke. By capturing the fog which impairs our vision engulfing the horizons and trace of snow-covered fields, Gustafsson reminds us that the countryside is not an icon, but is in constant change, suggesting that we should look beyond the physical state and appreciate its spiritual and supernatural character.” – via Urbanautica
“The various steps involved in the creation of these works are instructive: Welling first arranged and exposed plumbago blossoms on black-and-white sheet-film negatives then printed each one using a different assortment of colored gels. Each work is, then, like the result of a performance in the darkroom, where the admixture of infinitely shaded hues seems to pulse, swell, and bleed around and through the spiky branches—a performance that can be repeated, varied, and completed by each viewer in the act of looking. They are also exuberant displays of analogue technical wizardry that constitute an implicit rebuke to the surfeit of digitally manipulated photography that is less than truthful about its methods and effects.” – Text from The Whitney Biennial via Darius Himes
“The combination of film, photography and painting has become one of the key elements in Baldessari’s art. Beginning with his early photo-and-text works from the late 1960s, the exhibition includes his extensive use of found film imagery in the combined photographs of the 1980s, the irregular-shaped and over-painted works of the 1990s, as well as video, and concludes with his most recent works to date.
In the 1960s he notably painted statements derived from contemporary art theory and instructional manuals onto canvas. These early major works from Everything Is Purged …1966-68 to Tips for Artists Who Want to Sell 1966-68 will be included in the show. From the 1970s he marries his humorous pursuit of a new visual language to film. I Will Not Make Anymore Boring Art 1971 sees Baldessari record himself on videotape repeatedly writing the lines over and over again in a notebook for the duration of the tape. This period also begins his experimentation with collage using film stills and his own photos to conceive a series of aligned images. In the Blasted Allegories series from 1978, Baldessari explores the language of associated images by assembling a literal dictionary of photographs randomly sampled from commercial television.
The exhibition will examine the increasingly elaborate formal structures which Baldessari introduced into his work in later years and which have become a key component to his art. Abandoning the standard rectangular canvas or photographic format, he has produced a series of works combining numerous images to create various unconventional formats. Bloody Sundae 1987, for instance, forms an inverted T shape on the wall. On top, two men attack a third beside a stack of paintings; on the bottom, a couple lounges on a bed, a breakfast tray between them, all five faces obliterated by Baldessari’s signature circles of colour, increasing the unease.” – Tate Modern
“Rather than venturing out into nature, Joan Fontcuberta creates plausible, even spectacular landscapes using Terragen, a computer program originally created for military and scientific uses that turns maps into images of three-dimensional terrain. For these three works, Fontcuberta scanned details of three famous photographs by Bill Brandt, Alfred Stieglitz, and Man Ray (in collaboration with Marcel Duchamp) into a computer. Then the Terragen program decoded the data and output it as realistic-looking images of no place on earth–landscapes that are enticing but also creepy and unnerving.
Fontcuberta’s artificial landscapes underscore how our orientation to nature is mediated by our experience of previous images. Orogenesis: Man Ray/Duchamp is based on Élevage de poussière (Dust Breeding) (1920), an already mysterious photograph credited to both Man Ray and Duchamp which shows the surface of Duchamp’s enigmatic artwork The Large Glass. In Fontcuberta’s hands, the photo of this artwork’s dust-laden surface becomes a disorienting mass of fog-bound outcroppings that tilt up in the picture plane in a manner that is both threatening and inviting. Fontcuberta taps into our deep desire to experience majestic, unsullied, sublime vistas, while making those idylls fake, vacant, and unreachable.” – ICP
“Are human beings animals? Chameleon has the unique property of changing hues to match the color of the surroundings for self-protection. Rattlesnake can bury most of the body in sand soil. This can not only protect itself but also have a better access to food. There are also many animals, such as gecko, beetle etc., which have learnt to deal with the environment and the enemy in the longtime fight of life and death. In order to survive, good concealment has become the most critical factor.
Human beings are not animals! Because human beings do not know how to protect themselves.
In the recent three thousand years history of human civilization, basically the two items are written clearly: one, human beings develop in the destruction of their environment; two, the development of human is full of bad exploitation for themselves. The cost of the brilliant human civilization is that human beings almostly forget they are still animals, and forget their own instinct.
Human beings seem to have forgotten that they still need to think how to survive. When mankind is enjoying its development outcomes, its own greed becomes its grave digger. In human society, concealment is definitely not so simple just making oneself safe. The concept of mankind is denied. Saying the existence of human plays a master or proactive role, it would be better to say that as the concept way’s human beings, they are just using their hands to slowly weaken themselves.
The meaning of human is particularly frail under the cloak of economic development. The disappearance in death is the human’s body, but the slowly weakened in economic development is the human’s spirit. Thinking even becomes the meaning of the life. The latter is more terrible than the former. The war in the first half of the last century and the economic development in the second half had weakened human beings to make anything meaningless. Whether directly or indirectly, would or reluctant, human beings, once considered to be Earth dominated, have gradually being carried punishment by the order of nature.
Perhaps the phenomenon of the human’s existence is the elucidative way to the world.
One handred years ago, each Chinese man had a long plait behind his back. At that time, this was normal. If a man had no plait or cut it short, it was a symbol of his innovative ideas. But now, the plait behind the back previously was the the hallmark of artists, recently becomes the patent of the hairdressers in hair salon, all of who would be disparaged by the majority people with short hair. Long hair and plait themselves are meaningless. Their meaning depends on the outside environment. Human beings are born in society, so our thinkings are fixed by traditional culture. Human beings are so miserable that even their thinkings are copied unconsciously to the next generation. The mental enthrallment is more terrible than the physical disappearance.
Sometimes I feel fortunate that I was not born in the 1950s. The people in this generation experienced everything. They had many common ecperiences: having a deep feeling to Chairman Mao, cultural revolution, unnormal education, never going to college, obtaining iron rice bowl but meeting laid-off wave, cancelling to distribute houses, starting to buy houses, children going to school at their own expense and so on. Can merely the strength of culture and tradition influence the entire generation’s thinking styles.
Now, in the real material world, the world views of different people’s are also different. Each person chooses his/her own way in the process of contacting outside world. I choose to merge myself into the environment. Saying that I am disappeared in the environment, it would be better to say that the environment has licked me up and I can not choose active and passive relationship.
In the environment of emphasizing cultural heritage, concealment is actually no place to hide.” – Galerie Bertin
Bailey’s work is well worth your time to check out, his website has quite a collection.
“Marc Garrett: Thank you for taking part in the dialogue so far, it has been both enjoyable and illuminating.Much of your work involves a GUI (Graphic User Interface). User interfaces as we generally experience them, provide components for users to communicate with a computer. The interface defines the boundary between software, the hardware device or a user. What is interesting is that you are actually within the interface as well, performing in these environments.Could you talk about the relationship between you as the software developer and the software itself, within your performances?Jeremy Bailey:Hey Marc,It has always been very important for my image or the image of the user to be a part of the interfaces I create. My reason has a lot to do with my historical/theoretical approach. I have been exposed to a lot of 1970s performance video and have developed a very keen interest in the theoretical context of the period. Specifically, for what is termed “Performance for the Camera”. A popular term, but for those unfamiliar, it specifically refers to a state as described in Rosalind Krauss’ essay, The Aesthetic of Narcissism, in which the artist becomes part of a feedback loop between his or herself and the electronics of the camera. This creates a unique self awareness (reflectivity) that was not present prior to this time. The artist literally watches themselves (on a close circuit monitor) creating the work and responding simultaneously. To put this in perspective, take one step back in time and performances were created for live audiences (less feedback), take one step forward and we land in the digital era and our camera from the 1970s has become a computer (hyper feedback). I like to call what I do Performance for the Computer, and it necessitates a re-evaluation of some of the psychological paramters that artists were working with in the 1970s. There’s a lot of shit that happened in between then and now, that’s where things get very interesting IMO.ok, so with this in mind I can answer your question regarding my role as a software developer, I’ll have to tell a fable. It’s going to be long and poorly written and will repeat some of the above in crude language, I’m tired…So, it’s 1970, you’re a performance artist, you’ve been doing performances all over the place, in studios, outdoors, in concert halls, the back of police vans… you’ve got little to no documentation… probably some photos, maybe some writing, maybe you’re lucky enough to have some super 8 footage and some halfway decent audio recordings. Consumer video comes along, The Porta Pack, wow, this is great! cheap tape, sync audio, live previewing. But shit, the thing is prone to unspooling when jostled, and to see what things look at you need a hefty monitor. Fuck, maybe it’s not so great… but wait, you’ve got a studio, you could setup there and do all kinds of performances, watch them, adjust, finally get an idea of what/who you’re working with. Ok, this is strange, if I turn the monitor toward me I can watch myself as if I were the audience. Hmmm… there’s something different about this. I can’t go on doing the same kinds of performances. Nope. this is brand new. Yay! Video Art is born!!Ok, so fast forward a decade. It’s 1980something, you’re an upcoming electronic artist using computers to make amazing things happen in REALTIME! You have one problem, how do you document and show people what you’re working on. Oh, of course!!! you record it on a Handycam! You pass the tapes around, copy them, they get copied, you end up representing your country at the Venice Biennial. Happy endings are great! Strange thing is you don’t ever notice any of the things your friends noticed in the 70s, nope, you go right on making documentation on video without thinking twice about yourself as a performer. “I’m not a performer, I’m a programmer, my MACHINE is the artist, HE’s performing, ask HIM what HE thinks! this shows you what he does, that’s all” … Ok… I’ll do that, but don’t you think your macho friend is making you look a little meek on tape? “nope, that’s the way I like it, I’ve put all of me into that thing, don’t pay attention to me”. Ok, I’m going to just say it dude, your machine’s got a bigger dick than you and you’re a bit of a chauvinist for masculinizing it the way you are. I think you’re using your machine in all kinds of weird ways and I think you should think about what it means to give yourself over to an object like that. I mean, seriously dude.Ok, let’s fast forward 2 more decades. This thing called the internet is popular, everyone has a computer, realtime video processing is on every cpu, we video conference with friends and family, augmented reality is a burgeoning field. Ya, we can do anything with our data selves, artists and non artists alike. Yes! I’m going to share this video of me rotating photos and tossing them around using just my flailing arms to everyone in the entire world!! I look like an idiot? why do you keep looking at me??! Are you gay? yah. that’s it, I’m gay. Fuck dude, would you realize what the fuck it means to warp your face with that ichat filter? PLEASE!end of story, guy is increasingly clueless, distractions are increasingly numerous.so, I’ve used some colloquial language here to try and get a point across in impossibly high contrast. I play the role of the software developer in performances because I insist on forcing the acknowledgment that the computer is a site for performance and reflectivity. I am trying to use a laptop in 1975. I’m trying to understand what that means I guess.I hope this response doesn’t offend anyone. I was just trying to have some fun with it…” – Jeremy Bailey. Excerpt from in interview with Marc Garrett from Furtherfield.
Not much is written about this work, an in many ways, the beauty is in the simplicity.
“For one year I was working as a photo reporter in a daily newspaper “Deník” in Prague. Before sending photographs to the newspaper I manipulated them in Photoshop. Usually I was changing some little, unimportant details. The aim was to make an absurd, nonsense manipulation over the media manipulations.” – Ivars Gravlejs
Heyne’s work falls into the tradition of out-of-focus German photography that stands in sharp contrast to work from the Dusseldorf school. Heyne’s photographs lack a point of focus, or if I were to assume his intentions, serve to challenge sharpness as the default state of focus. In many ways, I see Heyne’s work to be an examination of sight, fixing an image in the periphery before resolving focus and context. Heyne acknowledges the photograph as record, yet seems to want his images to function as objects rather than records.
In many ways, his work is an exercise in futility, as barely recognizable objects are just that, recognizable. The issue here is not specific to Heyne’s work, but to ideas of focus and perception as a whole. To engage the viewer, there must be hope to resolve the content of the image, otherwise it functions as an abstraction rather than a photograph. The paradigm of photographic viewing is so ingrained with representation that to ignore the purpose of the medium would render you unable to critique it. A perceptible relationship to photographic representation allows us to challenge the function of the image and question inherently photographic ideas.
After spending some time with Heyne’s new book, The Noise, which is an ironic title for out-of-focus images with smooth gradations, subtle tones, and quite subjects, I am still left wondering about the larger motivations to the choices of focus. Heyne’s use of focus is an effective visual tool that produces some stunning images, but the nature of the medium leaves me wondering if there are better ways to engage us in an epistemological inquiry of photography. Considering this, is Heyne trying to fix the visions of our periphery or change the way we see?
“Through his pieces, Higgins prods at the human instinct to associate images with the familiar. Namely, there is a tendency for viewers to look for a “real” object/place that exists or has existed when confronted with an amorphous shape in nature, like a cloud or unidentifiable landmass. Through Difficulties with Interplanetary Travel, Higgins challenges the viewers to see beyond the recognizable and absolute. He adds uncertainty to the images by closely cropping scenes, thereby removing the images’ contexts, or employing interesting angles that impede the viewers from seeing the full panoramic surroundings. He recreates the world as we know it into a new fictional world where time and space remain ambiguous. “Real” landscapes, outer space, technology, dreams and memories combine to create a new environment beyond the standard confines of time and space. Are these images from the past, conjured from memory, or from the future? The viewers can never be sure if they are witnessing places/shapes that are familiar to them, intergalactic formations from planets beyond view or awareness, and/or something imagined/created by the artist or within the viewers’ imagination. For Higgins, his work is “About a place-but not necessarily a place you can go to.”
“…For the figures that appear in the sky make no sense…they are purely chance effects. It is man who, being naturally inclined to imitation, confers a meaning upon them as well as a relative permanence, by associating them with the idea of the creatures that they evoke” – Collette Blanchard Gallery
Lavalette is the founding editor of the fantastic Lay Flat , which is currently seeking funding to produce Lay Flat 02: Meta.
“A series of photographs made on June 6, 2003 with an early 3.34 megapixel digital camera. Years later the images have resurfaced as a response to German poet Bertolt Brecht’s “Remembrances of Marie A.” (1927) – a poem about forgetting the face of a woman once loved, but recalling her kiss by the memory of a great white cloud in the sky.
The images in this series have not been altered in in any way and include in the titles the hours, minutes and seconds that they were made on the day that they were taken. The photographs are presented at a large scale with overwhelming digital grain.” – Shane Lavalette
