In search of another gallery, Presentation / Representation at Bath Street Gallery drew me in with the concept behind it being and exhibition of works by 10 artists ranging from digital imaging to traditional 'authentic' methods to juxtapose "the artists’ individual ways of finding their image."
My interest in art began when I started photography but since since I actually started studying art history, I found I actually enjoy studying paintings more than photography. As a photographer, I often feel frustrated in the devaluing of photography as an art, often dismissed as 'just taking photos' as, unlike a painting, you often do not see all the time and trial and error which has gone into a work. With a painting you see all the meticulous brush strokes and get a sense of the amount of work which has gone into it. So despite the hipocrasy of it, I often all too easily write off photography exhibitions and am usually unimpressed. I did feel this was necessary point out now as I didn't feel particularly inspired by most of the works of this exhibition.
Regardless, I always attempt to look for meaning or aesthetic value or some indicator of the process and thought and hard work behind the image. The first series of works was by Laurenz Berges and I approached these in terms of aesthetic and compositional elements. The large scale photographs were often quite stark and gave an impression of looking out and enclosure. Stark, dilapidated indoor settings drew attention of texture and space with not much else in the frame. The colours were all dull and subdued and I felt the sense of confinement it conveyed pressing in on me. Though they weren't particularly cheerful works you'd want on your wall, they did convey some sense of meaning and emotion but they weren't particularly powerful or moving. Upon reading up on him, he is referred to as a "chronicler of absence" with meanings behind his works around the existential significance, trainsience and loss of space so to some extent these ideas came through to me.
The series I liked best within this exhibition was the works by Heidi Specker depicting a "multilayered portrait of a woman she met in Switzerland." When I first looked at these works I liked them for their focus on textures and elements in nature and in face, the series joined on in a narrative which each work subtly incorporating some element of the previous photograph. Though there was one work featuring a figure, I did not realize the series was focused on her. Again it was only through background reading that the whole series was to depict this woman and thinking about it, we do not see her face so the other photographs of the world around her are what are used to define her. In fact, another look at the selections of landscape depict them not in a wide angled expanse of space as we are used to seeing with landscape photography, but rather carefully selective and cropped. Though I needed the background reading to understand the intended meaning, I found rhythm and beauty in the composition and texture of the environment. Perhaps also the selection of these to represent this woman are in fact to make the same sort of statement about her.
One series of works by Wiebke Loeper was the only one I had any trouble engaging with and felt I had to do a lot more background reading to understand the content. I couldn't find any direct compositional link between the images and by themselves seemed quite vague, I was unable to read any deeper meaning than having taken a camera out into a specific context and docuenting it. Essentially, that was on the simplest level the idea, a photographic documentation of the impact of the changes wrought by the political processes in Wismar and maybe some initial background knowledge on the historical significance would've deepened my understanding and appreciation. But even as the images didn't link together very strongly, I couldn't find much of the aesthetic value in the photographs.
Overall, even though I wasn't particularly moved by this exhibition, it may in part also be because it was in two parts and I only saw the second part. I didn't see much of a visual cohesiveness between the artists, seeminly linked more only by background and chronological timeline. It was meant to reflect ideas around the shift between a presentation of the world and an artistically based representation of it as caused by the shift in photography as an analogue to digital medium. This sort of topic is in fact connotative of ideas around how accurately area we being depicted a representation of 'reality' so I can begin to see the link in that each artists has depicted some reality to them. Essentially though, I see that as a given in art where artists aim to show some sort of truth or meaning which to them constitues as a reality, whether through literal presentation or represenation of the essence. Reality though is transient as it is something we each see and interpret differently, and that is why I feel we have art.
My interest in art began when I started photography but since since I actually started studying art history, I found I actually enjoy studying paintings more than photography. As a photographer, I often feel frustrated in the devaluing of photography as an art, often dismissed as 'just taking photos' as, unlike a painting, you often do not see all the time and trial and error which has gone into a work. With a painting you see all the meticulous brush strokes and get a sense of the amount of work which has gone into it. So despite the hipocrasy of it, I often all too easily write off photography exhibitions and am usually unimpressed. I did feel this was necessary point out now as I didn't feel particularly inspired by most of the works of this exhibition.
Regardless, I always attempt to look for meaning or aesthetic value or some indicator of the process and thought and hard work behind the image. The first series of works was by Laurenz Berges and I approached these in terms of aesthetic and compositional elements. The large scale photographs were often quite stark and gave an impression of looking out and enclosure. Stark, dilapidated indoor settings drew attention of texture and space with not much else in the frame. The colours were all dull and subdued and I felt the sense of confinement it conveyed pressing in on me. Though they weren't particularly cheerful works you'd want on your wall, they did convey some sense of meaning and emotion but they weren't particularly powerful or moving. Upon reading up on him, he is referred to as a "chronicler of absence" with meanings behind his works around the existential significance, trainsience and loss of space so to some extent these ideas came through to me.
The series I liked best within this exhibition was the works by Heidi Specker depicting a "multilayered portrait of a woman she met in Switzerland." When I first looked at these works I liked them for their focus on textures and elements in nature and in face, the series joined on in a narrative which each work subtly incorporating some element of the previous photograph. Though there was one work featuring a figure, I did not realize the series was focused on her. Again it was only through background reading that the whole series was to depict this woman and thinking about it, we do not see her face so the other photographs of the world around her are what are used to define her. In fact, another look at the selections of landscape depict them not in a wide angled expanse of space as we are used to seeing with landscape photography, but rather carefully selective and cropped. Though I needed the background reading to understand the intended meaning, I found rhythm and beauty in the composition and texture of the environment. Perhaps also the selection of these to represent this woman are in fact to make the same sort of statement about her.
One series of works by Wiebke Loeper was the only one I had any trouble engaging with and felt I had to do a lot more background reading to understand the content. I couldn't find any direct compositional link between the images and by themselves seemed quite vague, I was unable to read any deeper meaning than having taken a camera out into a specific context and docuenting it. Essentially, that was on the simplest level the idea, a photographic documentation of the impact of the changes wrought by the political processes in Wismar and maybe some initial background knowledge on the historical significance would've deepened my understanding and appreciation. But even as the images didn't link together very strongly, I couldn't find much of the aesthetic value in the photographs.
Overall, even though I wasn't particularly moved by this exhibition, it may in part also be because it was in two parts and I only saw the second part. I didn't see much of a visual cohesiveness between the artists, seeminly linked more only by background and chronological timeline. It was meant to reflect ideas around the shift between a presentation of the world and an artistically based representation of it as caused by the shift in photography as an analogue to digital medium. This sort of topic is in fact connotative of ideas around how accurately area we being depicted a representation of 'reality' so I can begin to see the link in that each artists has depicted some reality to them. Essentially though, I see that as a given in art where artists aim to show some sort of truth or meaning which to them constitues as a reality, whether through literal presentation or represenation of the essence. Reality though is transient as it is something we each see and interpret differently, and that is why I feel we have art.
No comments:
Post a Comment