Anish Kapoor

In terms of scale, texture and color I have never really seen an artists work that matches that of Anish Kapoor. Ranging form small gallery wall installations to immense building size objects his work exists on many levels. While often using his trademark red Kapoor also explores reflection as well as solid color. Several large scale mirror projects can be seen in NYC as well as Chicago. In these projects not only does he take into account the art object itself but also the surroundings as they are just as much a part of the piece. Perfect placement and angle of the mirrors allows for an alternative view of the cities through the piece or art itself. Essentially manufacturing and positioning a canvas and allowing the city itself to do the rest.

In addition to the mirrored pieces Kapoor also has more gallery oriented pieces that explore the very nature of color and texture. Playing off of stark contrast, often between smooth gallery white and blood red he creates again creates a dialogue between the piece itself and the gallery. Objects that seem oddly placed, often causing the viewer to imagine how or what created the form in the first place.

Idea

slaughterama

Greg Stimac

Greg Stimac's Mowing the Lawn series is a portrait of an American tradition. It's hard to imagine an American house, in an American neighborhood with out grass surrounding it. It's an iconic part of our culture just as much as apple pie and baseball. The images are simple in terms of formal qualities and tone, but unsuspectingly deep in their repetition of concept. Each image is very static yet shows a certain struggle in each individual. Completely frozen in their actions it is possible to examine each persons physical involvement in their work. You start to notice the similarities that carry between each person. Aside from their obvious similar act of mowing it becomes apparent that each person is struggling in someway. No one is enjoying this mundane act that only exists as a 'this has to be done' basis. They appear to be robotically and blindly carrying out this act simply because it is engraved in them as something that they have to do. This is in general how most traditions function, a staple of everyday life yet not something that is often given though as to why it is happening, its just simply tradition.

Idea

It's been brought to my attention by several peers that barriers are a reoccurring theme in my recent work. While I've been conscious of the window type barriers I've never really taken into thought that the images are made up of essentially different ways of blocking off what is visible. The line is mainly responsible for this as it separates and blocks off different sections, creating the tension between different areas. This is subconsciously search for when I shoot. I feel like I do not take the time enough to stop and think why it is that I photograph such strong lines. It's obviously a huge part of my work, people know me for this, when they think of my photography they think of structure.

Barrier is a word that I have never really thought about though in terms of my work. These barriers are so visually strong in my work that often people ask if the images have been photoshoped, if they are a composite of different planes and images.



There's no denying that recently my work has become more and more visually consistent. The barrier has many forms, but is definitely present in every scene. Weather its in the form of a window, a snow drift or a balcony it is always there. I think when it comes down to it I just don't like to give the viewer the full image. The barrier creates a mystery as if something is being held back, it is my way of painting with the photograph. I get to choose what is seen and what remains hidden as the photographer, and more often then not I choose to section off. I think people are starting to notice the barrier because recently the work has dramatically been simplified. It has shifted from the more overloaded window shots the the simpler concentrated work seen above. The barrier is an important part of my work and is something that since my last critique will be much more conscious in how and when I use it.

Show entry: Anderson Gallery

Thursday Idea replacement: Artist lecture, Sanford Biggers

The Bridge is Over (biddybyebye)., 2006

Prayer Rug, 2005

Blossom, 2007

Sanford Biggers is a former VCU professor who currently teaches at Columbia University. Going into the lecture, like most, I had zero knowledge of the artist or his work. Biggers talk started off like most lecturers, with a little bit of background. He started by showing a montage of found footage that he said basically summed up his life and way of thinking. The video was strangely all over the place but in a even stranger way made sense somehow. At first I struggled to see the connections but as the video went on I started to see that there is a bit of method to his madness. It's clear that he has multiple influences from different cultures that have made him and his art what it is today; Asian Buddhism, African tribe culture and American hip hop just to name a few. His diversity in knowledge and perspectives is truly what has made him as successful as he is.

What really took me by surprise was some of the random pieces that he showed us. He started with the montage, then played a video comparing his family videos to a Jewish girls family videos. While these pieces were definitely interesting they were in heavy contrast to some of his physical structure work. To go from showing a video montage to a massive sculpture of a tree with a piano stuck in it was a little disorienting. The scope and technical amazement that these sculptures had seemed so distant form the other pieces that it was hard to tell that they were produced by the same artist. It's always interesting to me to see an artists true physical skill or talent. I feel like every artist has some basic skill that they are able to build their foundation for success upon. Some artist display it more blatant then others, but Biggers chose to let it creep out about halfway into the lecture. It doesn't always have to be something as concrete as detailed physical building like Biggers is, but each artist has to have that technical skill to be able to fall back on, almost like their street credit.

Biggers gave an interesting lecture, he was a little all over the place at times but was very genuine and engaging. Some of his work was subtlety mind blowing and he kept me guessing as to what he would talk about next until the end.

Andrew Borowiec

Belpre, Ohio, 2006

Canal Winchester, Ohio, 2006

Monroe, Ohio, 2006

Andrew Borowiec has the ability to capture something very unique. Not only can you see a county in transition, but a country at a specific point. Making the transition from black and white to full color, Borowiec traveled middle America, mostly the Ohio area, after the 2004 election. What he found was that the landscape itself reflected the people who inhabited it. It's possible to paint an entire portrait of a people with out even having to actually show them. So many 'American experience' photographers tend to focus on the people themselves but few look past them to the to the actual spaces themselves. A similar color pallet and an even use of lighting in his images seem eerily similar throughout each different location. The often subtle imagery seen in the pictures is contrasted with over the top, larger than life objects that play to the inconsistent tendencies of modern American life.

Idea

Earlier this week I went through my entire backup hard drive and searched through the thousands of photos that I have kept from over the years. I tend to be a little neurotic about saving photos, I keep absolutely everything. I 98% of the images I have shot over the some ten odd years I have saved. I've gone through five cameras now and I have folders for each one. I'm not sure why I separate them by camera, it just seemed natural I guess, possibly in the future I could go back and categorize them by color or something. Anyway I was looking through all these photos and I found ones that I really don't even remember taking. Images that I snapped while walking down the street, with friends, wherever. It was actually quite emotional looking through what was basically my life for the last ten years.

As I went through the hordes I grabbed singles that stood out to me for whatever reason and put them in a separate folder on the desktop. Once I was done with this I was really amazed at what I had come up with. I immediately saw similarities throughout the images both formally and conceptually. It's like my mind really has worked in the same way all these years, even if I didn't know it. I started paring like images and it began to read some how logically, just like a book. It blew me away so much that I think I just might have to make it into a book. Pictures taken in completely different location under totally different mind sets somehow came together as one. I like to hope that this is some sort of testament to my photographic eye but hey who knows. I think that this is a seriously beneficial exercise that any photographer who's as insane about keeping photos as I am should go through. Here are just a few:

Hans Hoffman

Morning Mist, 1958

Ave Maria, 1965

Rising Moon, 1964

Hans Hofmann was a famous abstract expression painter in the 50s and 60s who dealt with color field. What I found most interesting about his work was how it related to my own photography. Recently I have been trying to think a lot more about the role that color plays in my work. While I've never regarded it as the most important aspect, I feel that its something that I need to give a lot more attention to. In his book “The Search for the Real and Other Essays” Hofmann produced "A new type of landscape, one that is composed, not of trees and land, but of the tension between its space, form, color and planes." This statement rang really true with me as soon as I read it. Not only does it perfectly sum his work, but to an extent my own. I feel like in a way my work is a median between these 'trees and land' and the 'color and planes.' While I have not simplified my work to the level that he has I feel like a lot of the core components are the same. His simple yet complex ideas about objects and how they work with positive and negative space were really intriguing to me.

"It was the object that creates the negative or positive space, not, as traditionally conceived, that an object is placed in a space. If an object creates space, then it is light that creates form. Similarly, light makes color in nature, but color creates light in painting."

Idea

Color is something that has been playing a large part in my work recently. For the longest time the main thing I thought about was composition and line, making sure that the photos were perfect in that respect. I feel like in the last few months I have gotten to a point where the composition in my photos is exactly where I want it to be. I'm not saying that my compositions are perfect and I'm done progressing them but I feel like it's time to focus my attention onto something else. In my recent series its debatable that color plays a larger role then the compositions do in terms of what catches your attention. The color is what you see first, it's what draws you in, the composition and use of space are what keep you there.

I think that every picture has to have these two elements in order for it to be successful. A photo can not survive on just initial presence or intricacies. There has to be a perfect mesh of curb value and second wind depth in order for the photo to both function and keep a lasting impression. I think that this is something that is often overlooked in a lot of the instant photography of today. So many images exist purely on shock value, but have little to no lasting effect on the viewer. This is the challenge now days in the over-saturated market. Be able to grab the viewer, pull him over and make him look. But once there keep him interested enough to stick with it for more than five seconds, and remember it on top of that.

This is what I am looking for in my photos. I feel that some of my images in the recent series have both these qualities, while others lack in certain aspects. I think that if I can remember to keep both of theses things in my mind while shooting and editing the work can only grow.

O. Winston Link

NW 720-Livingroom on the Tracks, Lithia, Virginia

NW 1103-Hot Shot Eastbound, Laeger, West Virginia, 1956

Born December 16, 1914, O Winston Link is definitely the oldest photographer I have done research on. While his early life is interesting what hooked me the most was his large scale train project he worked on from 1955 to 1960. Link learned that the steam locomotive was about to be completely phased out of production and use so he decided that his goal for the next five years was going to be to document every aspect of the train, the industry, and the lives surrounding it. At first he started off by simply photographing the trains them selves from a purely mechanical standpoint as a record of how they were physically made. As time went on along his more than 17 trips from New York to Virginia he began to construct elaborate shots, mostly at night, to show off the small towns and pockets of life that existed along the tracks. Sometimes taking more than two days to construct and using ridiculously elaborate light set ups he was able to achieve amazing photos of cinema like proportions.

His photos became something more than simple documents of trains, they are a portraits of America in transition. Often going into homes and using actors and post-production techniques he was able to create the overwhelming scenes of a rapidly changing land. As time went on he established relationships with the communities as well as with the train lines themselves. His story to me is amazingly inspiring to the point where I want to do this myself. Just the thought of journeying across America following trains and photographing you're adventures sounds insanely magical.

Idea

A few recent shoots has really got me thinking about what this project really means to me. Lately I've been simply exploring, not setting a guide line for myself; no restrictions or 'cant shoot this rules.' Interestingly enough I have found that I return to the same areas over and over again, like a magnet I am drawn in, I really can't escape it. Shopping plazas are my happy place. Of all the areas in Richmond, and even wherever I travel, the one constant in areas that I shoot are shopping plazas. I know that this is obviously important and I think that I'm starting to realize that this had to be tied in a massive way to what my work is all about. Here are some recent shots:


I find myself searching for the beauty in these often rundown, dirty and sad locations. So many people go in and out of these locations daily and wouldn't even think to stop and admire what they are looking at, and why would they? These are places of business, locations for accomplishing chores, not parks. If people stopped to enjoy their surroundings then these plazas would not be doing what they were made to do; keep a constant flow. Park, buy things, leave. That's it. Excess time spent there is time spent preventing someone else from shopping. But at the right time of day, from the correct perspective you can see something else. The moments often only exist from one angle for a split second, but they are amazing.

I think this is the direction that I need to go in. If people can see a generic cookie cutter shopping plaza in a fantastic light then possibly it could cause them to second guess one themselves. The glass pane is a great medium for achieving this. Where we usually see whats inside a store or next to or behind it, being able to see it all at once balanced into one image is at the same time confusing and striking. Possibly placing the glass images with non window images will give them more context and allow it to be more accessible.

artist lecture: Hank Willis Thomas

Absolut Power, 2003

Branded Head, 2003

Viacom Kiosk View 1, 2003

Hank Wills Thomas, what a breath of fresh air. I have to say that last few VCU photo lectures Alec Soth, Shimone Attie just from off the top of my head have not been that stellar. Thomas however gave new life to the VCU photo lecture program by with his simple layout, charismatic attitude, and generally interesting and new ideas. From start to finish I was hooked, completely focused on what it was he had to say. His images and presentation methods were different and he really seemed to care about giving the lecture and involving the audience, instead of simply spitting out what he wanted to say. I would definitely rate Hank Wills Thomas among the best artist lectures I have seen in my college career.

Right from the beginning you could tell that Thomas didn't take this hole thing too seriously, which is a good thing. Too often I see lectures where the artist is so caught up in themselves that they place themselves above the audience and talk down as if on another level. While I understand that they are established artists and most of us are undergrads I still feel that for a lecture to be successful the artist has to be able to establish a connection early on with the crowd. Thoma's simple description of his undergrad and graduate careers were just enough to draw me in and be able to relate his personal story to my own. So often artists push their earlier work away and label it unimportant when most of the people in the crowd are in that stage currently. He discussed his topics and main themes gradually and straight forward, but leaving room for thought. If he truly had no idea what he was going to talk about, it really didn't show.

I loved the way he referred to advertisements as 'modern hieroglyphics.' Thinking of them in this way really aided the understanding of the concepts in his work. His art though often simple from a visual standpoint contains deep and powerful meaning that is emotionally charged. "You can never really escape the system, so I try to make a comment on it from the inside." The idea of erecting a massive fake Master Card add, satirizing the company and the ad campaign itself and not having to worry about having it taken down because it's essentially free advertising for the company is a crazy idea. His work really challenges the things we see everyday, the images that have forcibly become a part of everyone's life.

Katharina Grosse

Untitled, 2006

Town and Country, 2006

Cincy, 2006

Katharina Grosse's paintings are massive explosions of color, material and energy. Her mix of over saturated colors sprayed on to unlikely surfaces are very dramatic and over the top. Material that could easily be seen as garbage or ruble becomes suddenly glorified and used as a canvas. Her work ranges in scale from on the walls of a small gallery space to engulfing an entire warehouse, pushing what is generally though of as an art object. At a certain point these large works become almost performance like in that the viewer has to physically travel a sizable distance in order to take the entire piece in. It becomes an entirely new form that cannot really be easily defined by a term such as painting or sculpture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3nV--hCckc

Watching her work is truly just as much a part of the work as the piece itself. The droning sound mixed with the dense particle clouds creates an atmosphere that is very overwhelming. The artist here is deeply involved physically in her work to the point that she had to protect her self from the materials that surround her. The whole process of all that goes on to create one of her pieces is really interesting to me. So much more than just a brush or a canvas is needed in order to make each piece come into reality. Instead of bringing her work to the space, she makes the space itself her work.

Idea

Spaces are a huge part of my work. They are what I look for, what I think about, what fulfill me as a photographer. They are the core of my work. They are what have got me as far as I have. When I think of a shot I think of a space I envision the area. But what is a space? Why does this word continue to resurface constantly in my work? Well I think its time to define what this 'space' phrase really means to me as a photographer.

Ever since I purchased my first Cybershot ten years ago I've been a photographer. I feel that since that day I have viewed the world differently from others around me. It can stop me dead in my tracks sometimes seeing a shot. People can look but they don't always see what I see. It's just a wall, a parking lot, a window, but to me it has always been so much more. It's always been hard for me to justify what and why I photograph the things I do. The best way to put it is that it is just a feeling, a click, like when a cook knows when his steak is seared to perfection. I have thousands of photos saved dating back to the first Cybershot days, to the 5d days of recent. Recently I went back and examined a lot of my old photos and was surprised by how much I have grown, and at the same time how much I am still the same person. My style has never changed, it has only been refined.

So space. I think what I look for in a place I want to photograph is that all of the elements work together. That I can control each and every aspect of the area with making it look too much like I am. I'm attracted by light, line and cleanness in a space. A space has to have atmosphere, a vibe. When I enter a space it immediately becomes apparent that I need to photograph it. I think this is a large part of what my new work is all about. Where as before I would try to capture the entire space in full through wide angle now I am much more selective. I've become even more picky by cropping out the extraneous areas. This is a natural progression that I think will only progress as time goes on. I'm looking forward to cropping, choosing and blocking out space to continue the search for the perfect...space. I'm going to stop saying space now. Here are two 10 year old images:

John Opera

John Opera's images all have a similar visual and conceptual theme that ties them together. And while looking at his images you might not be able to immediately see how they all fit together, with a little bit of studying i starts to come together. I found his use placing abstractions and landscapes together on the same page to be a very interesting way of displaying work. Not only does it make you look at the abstractions in a different context but allows the viewer to draw similarities between the pieces. "Interior abstraction" and "Untitled (Shed II)" have similar compositions, color and tone, forcing me to think about them in relation to each other. In a gallery he displays all the different types of images mixed up, again playing on context. Images that could easily be in completely different bodies of work are all shown at once creating a strange story like melody that makes the viewer draw their own conclusions.

Idea

There's no way around it, purpose is what i lack. While I definitely have my own reasons for why I shoot what I shoot, they are not always apparent from the way I speak about the work. I feel like I constantly struggle between producing work that I know is attractive and work that has serious meaning behind it. But the more I think about it I feel I have come to realize that you don't really need to be able to explain your work in detail all the time, as long as you can grab the interest of the listener. I feel like I focus way too much on having a 'solid concept' and being able to say 'my work is about this,' when that is clearly not the way that I function.

I'm a good shooter. I'm good at having an idea or a plan or a location and going out and making a picture happen. It's rare when I have an envisioned plan that fails. This can be said for almost all of my undergraduate work that I have done so far. From AFO to senior port I have developed my style of working and carrying out a project and I think that I do not take enough time to stop and recognize these patterns that have formed.

1. Start with an idea or random thought
2. Completely visualize in my head the finished product
3. Possible sketch or small scale test shoot
4. Shoot
5. Post production
6. Store on hard drive and or print

It's funny to think about it but basically every project I have done in my early art career has basically followed these guide lines. So what does this say about me and my work? Well I definitely feel like I have hit a wall, both in my work and in my life. I'm at a serious transitional period and virtually ever aspect of my life is suffering because of it, and most importantly my work. Possibly its time to start a new process, try to rework my way of thinking so that I am more motivated. And I really really need a serious change of scenery.

I keep going back to the Alec Soth lecture a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure that in other settings, at some point he has spoken well and intelligently and optimistically. Obviously to get to that point of fame and success you have to be at least in some way inspirational and interesting but no one in that theater that day saw that, I can guarantee that. I think it definitely taught me something in the way of appearances really are everything. I'm sure that Soth didn't speak like that to the people giving him grants and awards, but for whatever reason in his head he felt like he had no need to impress or inspire an auditorium full of young impressionable youth that day.

Whats my point here? Well at the risk of sounding jaded it's all about talking the talk. You can produce horrible work but if you are able to sell it then it does matter. This is no new concept but I think its one that I have over looked for a while. I'm not saying that my work is going to start sucking, but I simply need to be able to speak better about my work and my self. Not only will it increase interest in my work, but also hopefully my confidence. Oh and pray to God that I don't end up like Alec Soth.

Sarah Pickering

Landmine, 2005
Napalm, 2005

Artillery, 2005

Flicks Nightclub 2004

Dickens, High Street 2003

Semi Detached 2003

Pickering's work seemingly dances on a fine line between reality and construction. Upon first glance it is not outright obvious if her work has been altered in post-production or not, and this is especially true for the "Public Order" series shown second here. The images are extremely stagnant and carefully composed with each shot containing some sort of opening to another area. These openings become a gray area where it becomes difficult to determine fiction from fact. In reality her images are actually documents of simulation, with the only manufacturing being done in the scene itself. Everything you see in her photos has been created by someone for for testing or demonstrating purposes. Pickering photographs illusion, events that could be misinterpreted as real situation, when the reality is that it is all 'fake.'

Her work to me is an interesting comment on the digital photoshop world itself. Now days we seem to define fake and real as if it was photoshoped to the point where the integrity and validity of the image has been altered. These images however contain completely fabricated content but have no real post-production alterations made to them, so whats more real? You can't really call these images 'reality' because they depict a simulation, a forced a event or space. But are they more real then if she would have photoshoped in other rooms or explosions? It is this play on our desire to stamp every image as true or photoshoped that I think is truly awesome about this work. I love questions!