-"What is your opinion of Andreas Gursky's work?"
-"What should the value of art be based on?"
An image of Andreas Gursky's 99 Cent from canadianart.ca
Unfortunately, my favorite Andreas Gursky photograph, 99 Cent, looks rather unremarkable in any sort of online reproduction. The massive scale of his work is a huge selling point, and seeing it with anything less kills much of the impact (although I will admit, a few well printed books have managed to recapture some of the appeal). Because the internet is now by far the largest vector for art sharing/ discovery, this inability for crossover appeal may be a critical weakness with regards to emulating his work (for up and coming artists looking for widespread recognition). Even Gursky admits: "The pictures are not so small that you can’t recognise anything; and they are still big enough that if you approach them you can get many details. But there are also images like Kamiokande which can’t be read in a small size - it can only develop its power in a bigger format"(Gursky on foto8.com). Fortunately for Gursky, he was able to make a splash in Europe (during the 80's) before the internet boom- and fortunately for me, I was able to see some of his full scale work at the Tate Modern in London three years ago. Along with the charcoal animations of William Kentridge, Andreas Gursky's photos are one of the exhibits that really stuck with me, and that held my attention at the time. Is he an abstract photographer? A social documentary photographer? He most likely sees himself as both and more (although, when interviewed, he often denies being an architectural or landscape photographer-two genres it is incredibly easy to pigeonhole him into), but I personally don't like to deconstruct it too much. In the right room, at the right scale, and with the right lighting there is very little comparable to his work-the color, the composition, the form, the sharpness, the ability to make me feel both amazed and ignorant at how much beauty I must overlook in everyday life (not a bad thing at all-more of a wake-up call). For example, a day at the beach can become something reminiscent of a Robert Rauschenberg painting:
Image taken from trendland.com
Image taken from pbart.com
As for the small format taking away from his work , I will say that some of the more recent printed compilations of his work, including 'Andreas Gursky' by Peter Galassi, do offer a decent 'second best' to seeing his work in person.
In summary, I love the full scale work! It is monumental, room filling, and breath taking. The weakness I see with Gursky is his inability to translate to the smaller format. His work needs a very specific environment in order to really shine. This is a really nit-picky point with me, and I realize it's like saying "The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is only 'OK' because it's not that impressive on a computer screen"-but I stand by it...for now.
Part Two
Now, for the more difficult question: "What should the value of art be based on?"
One interesting approach that has been taken recently in the music industry is leaving the price of the work up to the buyer-or the decision of whether to pay at all. This has been pioneered by artists like Radiohead and The Smashing Pumpkins. It should be noted, however, that both artists are multi-platinum successes, and have built their careers on highly profitable previous projects-money, marketing, and day to day living are of little concern to them any more-even if no one decided to actually pay for their work, they could more than comfortably retire on the royalties from their back catalogues.
The most practical and fair method for determining value, I believe, is basing it on the demand for an artist's work. It is simple supply and demand economics: competing buyers will drive the price up until a desired amount is eventually reached, and a project is undertaken or a work is sold. An artist can work to create this demand by increasing their public presence and standing. This relies largely on honing one's artistic (technical) skills, learning business and marketing skills (and embracing creative marketing tactics), pushing artistic boundaries, taking advice from already established artists, and self promotion. I like the supply/ demand concept because (through the aforementioned activities) it discourages laziness while it encourages courage, innovation, and an entrepreneurial spirit. Consulting already established artists is also incredibly healthy as it not only results in insightful advice-it relies on the "asker" to put aside their pride and arrogance and admit that they "do not know everything".
No comments:
Post a Comment