Andreas Gursky - take a hike !

[Ken R]

Coincidentally Rodney Lough Jr posted this yesterday on his public facebook page:

"Let’s just make it official. I have reached the end of my rope.

Today I was told about a photograph supposedly selling for $6.5M dollars by a photographer (I will not call him an artist, although the folks in his graphics department are obviously very good at what THEY do) who should be strung up by the nearest tree for the deceptive business practices he perpetrates on the general (unknowing) public.

The repeated and sickening marketing orchestrations done by this person is beyond contempt!

Not only is the press release a BS sales tactic, but also Imaging USA has him as a keynote speaker and is presenting him with a lifetime achievement award! I'm done. I'm checking out of this industry. Is there no shame to which this person or his business will go?

If this is truly what the world wants, then let them have it. But I’m done. I’m done being silent. I’m done putting up with it for sensitivities sake. And I’m done watching an industry that I have dedicated my life protecting get destroyed because the silent majority just sits back and says nothing for fear they might be thought of as being insensitive and labelled a bully.

Fake is fake.

Everything about this smells of fake.

The only lifetime achievement award that should be given ought to be based on the movie How to Get Ahead in Advertising.

Period."

Wow. Strong words from a man who knows the business first hand.

[Hulyss]

Wow. Strong words from a man who knows the business first hand.

Yes, this is pretty sad. At his level, this reaction is perfectly understandable. Let's support Rodney and his work.

[Alan Klein]

I think that's the kind of post you should have done at the first place Manoli...

IMO, what makes Gursky's work so special, is the fact that he makes so obvious the visualisation path until the final print... Gursky doesn't look at a scene and says "Hey, that's nice, lets shoot it" as most "photographers" do... Instead, he works the same way as any other artist (a painter. an author...), he visualises the print first and then designed the path to achieve it, exactly like he visualised it... The size, the subject, the lighting, the coding of the message involved (i.e the presentation of the subject) has all been pre-decided and the technical path has been pre designed and pre decided... and this all he makes obvious on the final result.

Now, one can't imagine a painter that grabs his brush and starts painting without first having visualised the final painting... can it be otherwise? Neither an author can start writing a novel, unless he first has visualised the scenario, the characters, their looks, the lighting, the environment that will be in the novel...

Visualisation is the fundamental behind art, photographs without visualisation behind them cannot be art (by definition of art)... After all, Adams has spend the whole chapter in his very first book on the mater... but let's hear him on video speaking on the subject... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gT-G42cskH4

The video does not show Adam's explaining visualization as Gursky does it or how you explained it.  Gursky plans his work weeks maybe months in advance, pulling together all the elements to match what he plans as a final print.  Adam's in the video does not directly say how he does it.  Rather, he quotes (Alfred) Stieglitz saying that he wopuld be outside and see something that excites him and then visualizing how the final print would look and then going about to capture the shot that way.  In effect, Steiglitz did not see the print in advance of his actually visualizing it right before he took the picture. 

I think many photographers do that knowing that nature will help them visualize a final print that is captivating by planning their photo trips around magic hour, selecting filters that modify the scene into their visualized view of the moment as how they would like to see it in the print.  It just that they are not planning it in the same way as Gursky.  Rather, they are visualizing it in real-time.

But I do appreciate your post.  It helped me think of what I do and should do in a more enlightened way.

[Manoli]

Wow. Strong words from a man who knows the business first hand.

At his level, this reaction is perfectly understandable.

At any level, the reaction is understandable - in fact far more than just 'understandable'. Let's hope that it finally awakens the silent majority from a quasi universal stupor. A 'general (unknowing) public' is hardly an excuse for the gullibility, let alone complicity of many. Hopefully this could be the catalyst for some form of fiscal and/or judicial investigation.

[Theodoros]

The video does not show Adam's explaining visualization as Gursky does it or how you explained it.  Gursky plans his work weeks maybe months in advance, pulling together all the elements to match what he plans as a final print.  Adam's in the video does not directly say how he does it.  Rather, he quotes (Alfred) Stieglitz saying that he wopuld be outside and see something that excites him and then visualizing how the final print would look and then going about to capture the shot that way.  In effect, Steiglitz did not see the print in advance of his actually visualizing it right before he took the picture. 

I think many photographers do that knowing that nature will help them visualize a final print that is captivating by planning their photo trips around magic hour, selecting filters that modify the scene into their visualized view of the moment as how they would like to see it in the print.  It just that they are not planning it in the same way as Gursky.  Rather, they are visualizing it in real-time.

But I do appreciate your post.  It helped me think of what I do and should do in a more enlightened way.

Good base for discussion... I don't think that time spend on preparing the capture is relevant to visualisation... Adams, did have many of his shots prepared for weeks before he made them (like the shot of the moon I mentioned earlier) and other shots that inspired him just before he made them...  But still, both Adams and Gursky's visualisation procedure is worlds apart from those that believe they are "visualising" just because they "saw" a shot and spended some time as to frame it, set the exposure on it and decided on the perspective of it... Adams and Gursky and other artists are visualising the photo-graph... the final print! ...See? ...they have developed the ability to "see" with their minds the print finished before they ever make the capture... This is worlds apart from people that set up their equipment and shoot a scene, check it in their screens and then decide later on their monitors if it looks good or how they can "improve" on its look... 

These people (the real artists), know that a photo-graph is only the printed thing on paper... So, they are visualising the print... the finished thing! (just like Pollock or other great painter is visualising his painting finished... or a writher visualises the novel finished... done! See the difference? Now after one develops the talent to work that way... he then has to put some reasoning behind his creations... ...A piece of art is not a bold statement, it includes a message in it, this means that the artist includes the coding of the message in his visualisation for the recipient to de-code...  It doesn't sound very easy... does it?

[Manoli]

I started this thread in the hope that it would be a rallying point, an outlet for members to both comment on and  raise awareness on an issue so flagrant in it's deceptive intent that it beggars belief.

To Theodoros, I've explained it, not that it needed explaining, twice. For you to continue posting completely off-topic indicates an oblivion I don't wish to be party to. You want to discuss art, visualisation and the semantics of photo-graphy - do it in the appropriate sub-forum , in an appropriate thread.

Thanks to KenR, amolitor and the others who've contributed both on-topic and light relief.
Now, f-it, topic locked.