Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 12, 2016, 01:03:38 pm
-
http://time.com/4166380/discover-gregory-crewdsons-new-surreal-photographs/?xid=fbshare
Executive summary for the uninitiated:
Mr. Crewdson takes photographs the way a director makes a movie. He comes up with a concept and composes a scene on location—often with a crew of 40 people. “I don’t even like holding a camera,” he says. “I see myself as a picture maker, where I’m interested in the thing that’s happening in front of me.”
Another article on the same subject: http://www.wsj.com/articles/gregory-crewdson-when-photos-meet-the-movies-1452277074
-
There are great many examples of very, very similar techniques in works of pictorialists.
For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._Holland_Day
Neighbors in Norwood, Massachusetts assisted him in an outdoor photographic staged photography re-enactment of the crucifixion of Jesus.
-
Where is there a good online presentation of GC's work? I could only see two small photos from the articles posted. The first link I clicked on the image and it takes me to a blank page. Why do galleries seem to always have problems with their online sites.
I really don't see a cinematic look to his work but I do see the setup for each scene as if preparing for a movie shoot. Clearly downsizing for web viewing really screws up the texture and color because I can't believe they're that ashen and dreary looking.
-
The first link has seven images viewable full size, no?
-
Interesting... not really surreal to my mind, maybe just subtely hyper-real, rather like the early paintings of Lucien Freud.
(http://images.tate.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/lucian%20freud%20interior%20in%20paddington.jpg)
-
He certainly gets to work with good models: Tilda Swinton, Julianne Moore, Gwyneth Paltrow...
https://gregorycrewdson.wordpress.com/son-oeuvre/dream-house-2002/
-
http://time.com/4166380/discover-gregory-crewdsons-new-surreal-photographs/?xid=fbshare
Executive summary for the uninitiated:
Another article on the same subject: http://www.wsj.com/articles/gregory-crewdson-when-photos-meet-the-movies-1452277074
Perhaps Im just too old to get how these images have been defined as surreal. In my youth surreal was the territory of Salvador Dali.
Im not certain that the strict definition of surreal is.?
-
The first link has seven images viewable full size, no?
Whoops! You're right, Slobodan. I think I didn't scroll far enough down and immediately saw my cursor change hovering over the image and clicked on that first which brought me to a blank page.
Now that I've seen all seven enlarged I'm getting the feeling they're more painterly than cinematic. There's no absolute black in any of the images. Nice smooth and airy low contrast tonal transitions with plenty of hard edges to contrast against.
They all appear like low dynamic range paintings similar to Vermeer's work. On shots of distant outdoor scenes the people look like they're pasted in as a composite. They don't cast a shadow. I'ld expect more realism and detail from a large format capture. Maybe too much post processing is the cause.
It's more creepy and disturbing than surreal especially the "The Basement" and "Father and Son".
-
It's more creepy and disturbing than surreal especially the "The Basement" and "Father and Son".
Yes, and I'd say the not-quite-realistic look is deliberately chosen to achieve this, rather than being an accident of processing.
By the way, I notice that on the gallery site one of his images is listed as printed on Epson PPG, so I guess he's not too troubled by the opinion that the Epson watermark on the back makes the print look "cheap" ;D
-
The definition of surreal must have changed in the last few years and I did not notice.
-
The definition was never very clear:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealism
The one common element is the notion of dreams and dream-like states: the not-quite realistic images by Crewdson could well fit into that. Not everyone has dreams as exotic as Dali :)
-
The more I digest his images, the more impressed I am. The "generic" art-photo attempts to vehicle fairly typical emotions: wonder, desire, admiration, romanticism etc... whereas Crewdson's latest batch make me feel "... uh, something is weird here, what's going on?..."
-
Thanks Slobodan. My first reaction - reminds me of Andrew Wyeth.
-
Obviously 'surreal" is a different genre in photography than in painting!
I'm struggling to see what is surreal about these photographs. They are, in fact, hyper real. The images are anchored and designed around a carefully stage-managed reality. That is not the same as surreal. With the surreal we are taken into a realm that cannot possibly exist in the real world. None of these photos fall into that category. There is, in some, a dream-like quality but again , not surreal.
Sorry to be pedantic but when words are misused it makes our language less precise. Look at what happened the word 'existential'. It is now used by jackasses trying to sound intelligent instead of the word 'actual' or 'real' as in 'existential threat'.
-
Obviously 'surreal" is a different genre in photography than in painting!...
Or in common usage, as per a thesaurus:
unreal, bizarre, unusual, weird, strange, freakish, unearthly, uncanny, dreamlike, phantasmagorical.
Words can have more than one meaning.
-
There is, in some, a dream-like quality but again , not surreal.
Surreal, not surrealistic (http://mediastore4.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/TR2/c/6/4/d/PAR45083.jpg).
-
Or in common usage, as per a thesaurus:
Words can have more than one meaning.
The trouble with the Thesaurus is that it gives all possible variations in alternate words but totally devoid of context. In language, context is so often what dictates our choice from a possible list of words. If your premise that the thesaurus allows the use of any words devoid of context then all the words you provide are pertinent to these photographs - unreal, bizarre, unusual, weird, strange, freakish, unearthly, uncanny, dreamlike, phantasmagorical.
Perhaps you are right these photos are freakish. Indeed they might be uncanny. They are definitely bizarre.
In a forum devoted to photography as art the context is clear and any student of art has a very clear understanding of what surreal means.
-
Surreal, not surrealistic (http://mediastore4.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/TR2/c/6/4/d/PAR45083.jpg).
Not sure why I appear in this message. I have no idea what this means! Did someone use the word surrealistic?
-
.... In a forum devoted to photography as art the context is clear and any student of art has a very clear understanding of what surreal means.
A forum member recently posted a thread "Impression Nr. 1, Arran." Should we conclude that the post should only be understood in the context of Impressionism?
-
In a forum devoted to photography as art the context is clear and any student of art has a very clear understanding of what surreal means.
Not sure why I appear in this message. I have no idea what this means! Did someone use the word surrealistic?
In a forum devoted to photography as art the context is clear and any student of art will clearly understand that Crewdson's photographs are surreal without being surrealistic.
-
Full Definition of surreal
1: marked by the intense irrational reality of a dream; also : unbelievable, fantastic <surreal sums of money>
2: surrealistic
-Merriam-Webster
-
What has Crewdson done that Edward Hopper didn't do first?
(In this series, Cathedral of the Pines), it seems to me his works are an homage to Hopper, at least within the contextuality of pastiche.
At the very least, the works are informed by Hopper's oeuvre.
-
Everything has been done before. Much more explicit hommages to Hopper have been done, so it comes down to asking whether it's hommage, pastiche or just inspiration
http://culturainquieta.com/es/foto/item/3974-hopper-meditations.html
-
Everything has been done before. Much more explicit hommages to Hopper have been done, so it comes down to asking whether it's hommage, pastiche or just inspiration
http://culturainquieta.com/es/foto/item/3974-hopper-meditations.html
Given he is professor of Photography at Yale, I'd say he is fully informed in all aspects of historicity, photographically speaking in a Post Modern context (as well as a complete epistemology of film and photography overall). One of the most basic tenants of Post-Modernism is quotation and parody. He uses Hopper as just one element in his Palette. There's a lot going on there. From Wyeth (as was mentioned earlier in the thread) to Hopper and all inclusive in-between, these are interesting in the sense that they are "Hollywood-ized" in a country context (meaning staged, etc.)
Surprisingly, if you go to the film production called "Justified", you can stop the video at many places and find similar imagery and quality of light, staging and post-processing. I think Crewdson's images have to work hard, however, in that they have to portray and deliver in "one take".
I also found it interesting that he discussed not having any answers, but rather posing questions....
I looked at your link about Hopper, although I couldn't read the material, I found the images to be overdone compared to the subtlety of Crewdson. Interesting link, however.
-Mark
-
Yes, it would be reasonable to say they were over-done : looks like a lot of pushing local contrast to make it look like painting. Plus many of them were re-stagings of specific images, whereas for me Crewdson was much more subtle in capturing the mood, or even re-constructing the idea, while not aping oil painting or the precise scenes.
-
Agreed. There is something very odd about the images though, that they somehow capture what those who live in the North in the winter time call "cabin fever". The subjects (or participant-actors) have mostly blank stares and are leaning toward depressiveness rather than neutral. There's a kind of resignation to them. I really don't think surreal or surrealism has much of anything to do with the images, actually, as much as catatonic does. The message to me is almost as though the actors in the images in large part are saying:
"OK, we're stuck here for the duration. Don't like it, yet must put up with it. Can't even make the best of it, just stuck, having no where to go or anything else to do."
If I didn't know better, it would be as though the participants/actors were directed to be "epileptic", staring blankly as though in a trance.
Yet there is definitely a kind of magic about the images on many levels, probably in particular the prices.........
-
If I didn't know better, it would be as though the participants/actors were directed to be "epileptic", staring blankly as though in a trance.
Do you really know they weren't? Although it's not what the word "epileptic" conjures for me (certainly not grand mal), do you mean catatonic ?
-
Do you really know they weren't? Although it's not what the word "epileptic" conjures for me (certainly not grand mal), do you mean catatonic ?
I am afraid I was treading on thin ice when I used the word epileptic. I meant it in the sense that many who are afflicted often have blank stares prior to a seizure. I really shouldn't have used that word in this context just from the standpoint of the seriousness of that condition.
I do mean catatonic, as previously stated, although no single word adequately describes the stance of the actors.