Please respond here to the Becher/Sander show at the Getty. Share your comments, questions, and critical interactions. (two brief paragraphs should be fine)
10 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I saw a video last year on the Becher couple, and the work they were doing with the typology photography. They traveled far and wide to get a single shot to go with a set. Personally, I think that their travels and experiences they do along the way are much more interesting than the photos themselves. Am I not giving enough apreciation to the mastery and perfection of the pieces? Maybe not... but they just didn't interest me. Buildings that look like eachother. Where is the meaning behind it? I'm sure I must be overlooking it, and just need help seeing it. August Sander's show was interesting in that he captured so well the significance of who he shot. I'm intrigued the most by those shots that might make one twinge at the thought of actually taking the picture. With myself as the photographer, I might think "Eeek, is it okay that I'm taking a picture of this person?" before I shot one of the "outsiders or freaks" that he photographed. What I find interesting as well is that you can sense a certain sensitivity in this particular set of photos. They are not insulting or crude.
Honestly, I entered the Becher show not expecting to like it. I figured that water towers could not be that interesting. I am happy to say that I was wrong. I was blown away by the composition to start with. Tower after tower, house after house in perfect unity and symmetry. The contrast was usually dead on. It had true blacks, eye-affecting whites and gray tones that brought description. I feel the August Sander show did a similar thing with the success of a large sections of repetitious photos but instead of buildings, Sander uses people. There are differences here too. No two people are ever alike. While the people sat in similar position, they were unique and brought a story all their own. Also Sander worked with an excessive amount of gray tone that the Becher's blast with contrast. This gray tone is successful for the work and set the mode. The one important thing these two have in common is the ability to make photography in some areas look like a painted work. Both had places in their compositions here the contrast and tone are so elegantly executed that it appeared brushed over. These moments were a nice surprise.
Well I must say that I am not a fan, shocking I know. I think that I can appreciate it a little more now knowing the idea that they are working with and trying to communicate but even still I have a hard time grasping the significance. Even though the images are printed well technically, it seems as though they could have better communicated their point within an essay. That may be a bit harsh, and perhaps I am a little bitter because I don't understand, but it seems to me that if you have to do a lot of research before you can understand what you are looking at then would it not be better to just tell us? Which for me then begs the question, has the artist seceded with these images?
Sander's work caught my eye the moment i entered the gallery space; particularily because i am interested in portrait photography myself. i enjoy the composition choice of his photographs (allowing the person in the photo to occupy most of the space where all focus should be on); i can see his photographs are very thought through with the surroundings each individual is shot in; i was able to enter in and get to know a little bit about each person.
August Sander has some nice portraits. I liked the ones in action more than the ones staged. Some were so beautifully arranged especially the one with the children surrounded by texture. I wanted to steal that one. I like how he takes portraits it is definitely a style that we still use today. The ones of the outcasts and workingmen were also my favorites. Basic Forms by Bernd and Hilla Becher; need I say more? This was full of forms, houses, shapes in grid like deadpan perspective. Nothing really stopped me but I do appreciate their forms.
Ok so what I got from the Becher's was this: they see that regardless of time and place, there is a typographic in all things. That's cool I guess. I wasn't too thrilled with the single pictures - no context means their idea of typography is completely missed.
Sander was awesome. I love his portrait style for sure, but I really appreciate the vastness of his subject matter! Historically, it's so interesting to see several different types of people in Nazi Germany. In the context of Nazism, it makes the show even more important.
Becher's work was boring to me--- I couldn't look at it for very long because I didn't know where to go beyond treating them like those games where you find the differences between seemingly similar images. All I could think of when I looked at the millions of water-towers was "hmm. how does this one differ from that one?" That didn't keep me interested... I quickly moved on to the Sander show.
August Sander is a genius! I loved his work. My expectations were completely incorrect going into the show. For some reason I thought he'd have a monotony to his images... but walking through his prolific body of work showed me something completely different. I saw a such a specific uniqueness in each person that got in front of Sander's lens. Everyone from the city-workers to the artists seemed to have similar aura's, but still held their own personality. He brilliantly brought everyone to the same level, but still maintained an ebb and flow in his images of each person.
Why are the walls at the Getty gray? I have never noticed that before. I love the Bechers' work. The prints are technically gorgeous and the subject matter is so mundane so as to become sublime. Documentation of industrial buildings and treating them with the same respect as portraiture can easily become a great conversation regarding whether we treat relationships or progress (in an industrial or work sense) more important. That is why it was awesome to have August Sander right next to the Bechers. His work documents the lives of those around him, suggesting much about their characters from the title and body language of the subjects. He considered them worthy to be photographed, as opposed to buildings. I don't really know what I am saying, actually.
I really enjoyed the show at the Getty. I liked how Sander photographed the outcast of society, or the "weird ones" which people don't normally come close to. I think that for his time this was a big statement and really put himself out there, as well as the subject matter.
Loved Becher. What could be seemingly boring I found to be quite interesting. I thought the compisition as well as quality of the prints were quite stunning.
I had also seen the same video that Cherish saw and found it interesting that the Becher's went to such great lengths to photograph these structures.Something about it is a little obsessive to me, like an OCD disorder where they have to record every structure in the same way and group all the same ones together. I'm glad that they do what they do though because they bring light to these interesting buildings that are otherwise overlooked. I found Sander's work a little more captivating than the Becher's. I seemed to be drawn more toward his family portraits and the farmers dressed as dandy's more so then his vocational portraits. Something about the dynamic of the family portarits really drew me in. His pictures of "outcasts" were interesting, but I do feel that he may have walked the fine line between documentation and exploitation. -Jessica Chapman
10 comments:
I saw a video last year on the Becher couple, and the work they were doing with the typology photography. They traveled far and wide to get a single shot to go with a set. Personally, I think that their travels and experiences they do along the way are much more interesting than the photos themselves. Am I not giving enough apreciation to the mastery and perfection of the pieces? Maybe not... but they just didn't interest me. Buildings that look like eachother. Where is the meaning behind it? I'm sure I must be overlooking it, and just need help seeing it.
August Sander's show was interesting in that he captured so well the significance of who he shot. I'm intrigued the most by those shots that might make one twinge at the thought of actually taking the picture. With myself as the photographer, I might think "Eeek, is it okay that I'm taking a picture of this person?" before I shot one of the "outsiders or freaks" that he photographed. What I find interesting as well is that you can sense a certain sensitivity in this particular set of photos. They are not insulting or crude.
Honestly, I entered the Becher show not expecting to like it. I figured that water towers could not be that interesting. I am happy to say that I was wrong. I was blown away by the composition to start with. Tower after tower, house after house in perfect unity and symmetry. The contrast was usually dead on. It had true blacks, eye-affecting whites and gray tones that brought description.
I feel the August Sander show did a similar thing with the success of a large sections of repetitious photos but instead of buildings, Sander uses people. There are differences here too. No two people are ever alike. While the people sat in similar position, they were unique and brought a story all their own. Also Sander worked with an excessive amount of gray tone that the Becher's blast with contrast. This gray tone is successful for the work and set the mode.
The one important thing these two have in common is the ability to make photography in some areas look like a painted work. Both had places in their compositions here the contrast and tone are so elegantly executed that it appeared brushed over. These moments were a nice surprise.
Well I must say that I am not a fan, shocking I know. I think that I can appreciate it a little more now knowing the idea that they are working with and trying to communicate but even still I have a hard time grasping the significance. Even though the images are printed well technically, it seems as though they could have better communicated their point within an essay. That may be a bit harsh, and perhaps I am a little bitter because I don't understand, but it seems to me that if you have to do a lot of research before you can understand what you are looking at then would it not be better to just tell us? Which for me then begs the question, has the artist seceded with these images?
Sander's work caught my eye the moment i entered the gallery space; particularily because i am interested in portrait photography myself. i enjoy the composition choice of his photographs (allowing the person in the photo to occupy most of the space where all focus should be on); i can see his photographs are very thought through with the surroundings each individual is shot in; i was able to enter in and get to know a little bit about each person.
August Sander has some nice portraits. I liked the ones in action more than the ones staged. Some were so beautifully arranged especially the one with the children surrounded by texture. I wanted to steal that one. I like how he takes portraits it is definitely a style that we still use today. The ones of the outcasts and workingmen were also my favorites.
Basic Forms by Bernd and Hilla Becher; need I say more? This was full of forms, houses, shapes in grid like deadpan perspective. Nothing really stopped me but I do appreciate their forms.
Ok so what I got from the Becher's was this: they see that regardless of time and place, there is a typographic in all things. That's cool I guess. I wasn't too thrilled with the single pictures - no context means their idea of typography is completely missed.
Sander was awesome. I love his portrait style for sure, but I really appreciate the vastness of his subject matter! Historically, it's so interesting to see several different types of people in Nazi Germany. In the context of Nazism, it makes the show even more important.
Becher's work was boring to me--- I couldn't look at it for very long because I didn't know where to go beyond treating them like those games where you find the differences between seemingly similar images. All I could think of when I looked at the millions of water-towers was "hmm. how does this one differ from that one?" That didn't keep me interested... I quickly moved on to the Sander show.
August Sander is a genius! I loved his work. My expectations were completely incorrect going into the show. For some reason I thought he'd have a monotony to his images... but walking through his prolific body of work showed me something completely different. I saw a such a specific uniqueness in each person that got in front of Sander's lens. Everyone from the city-workers to the artists seemed to have similar aura's, but still held their own personality. He brilliantly brought everyone to the same level, but still maintained an ebb and flow in his images of each person.
Favorite: the farmer on his way to church.
Why are the walls at the Getty gray? I have never noticed that before. I love the Bechers' work. The prints are technically gorgeous and the subject matter is so mundane so as to become sublime. Documentation of industrial buildings and treating them with the same respect as portraiture can easily become a great conversation regarding whether we treat relationships or progress (in an industrial or work sense) more important. That is why it was awesome to have August Sander right next to the Bechers. His work documents the lives of those around him, suggesting much about their characters from the title and body language of the subjects. He considered them worthy to be photographed, as opposed to buildings. I don't really know what I am saying, actually.
I really enjoyed the show at the Getty. I liked how Sander photographed the outcast of society, or the "weird ones" which people don't normally come close to. I think that for his time this was a big statement and really put himself out there, as well as the subject matter.
Loved Becher. What could be seemingly boring I found to be quite interesting. I thought the compisition as well as quality of the prints were quite stunning.
I had also seen the same video that Cherish saw and found it interesting that the Becher's went to such great lengths to photograph these structures.Something about it is a little obsessive to me, like an OCD disorder where they have to record every structure in the same way and group all the same ones together. I'm glad that they do what they do though because they bring light to these interesting buildings that are otherwise overlooked.
I found Sander's work a little more captivating than the Becher's. I seemed to be drawn more toward his family portraits and the farmers dressed as dandy's more so then his vocational portraits. Something about the dynamic of the family portarits really drew me in. His pictures of "outcasts" were interesting, but I do feel that he may have walked the fine line between documentation and exploitation.
-Jessica Chapman
Post a Comment