Gursky Gossip

Large Format Chatter Clutter

The most frequent question on the net: How did X get? In photoland, this is phrased: What camera does X use?

Weekenders spend their days discussing tech, buying choice, details of use for years. It is how the fora survive; as support for limited exchanges, or, exchange reduced to limited topics. Contrary to their assumptions, these exercises reduce their development; retarding, reducing them to talking about the sales brochure with the counter cleaner.

they don’t read much theory. why would they? they know all they need. I wouldn’t read theoretical concrete or waste removal. I know all I use, already.

Not to forget the main focus of this thread, I’m afraid Gursky doesn’t work for me at all – just nothing there with any resonance for me. I do understand how the elaborate production serves his purposes, so more power to him.

LFPF Mod’s input to request for “Camera & Gursky”

Gursky doesn’t talk about process. Resists answering questions about how he works, all the while, willingly talking for hours about what the imagery means; where it comes from; thoughts, and impressions he gains from other artists.

Meanwhile, the forum is filled with conversation about film, developer, aperture; going so far as clarifying if it is the lens with the ‘inside or outside lettering.’ This is the fine detail of fine art.

No it isn’t! It is merely more bad reasoning about how photography becomes meaningful. These are detours for the lost. A cynic would say that these sites are sand traps meant to keep the avid away from the accomplished.

The buy/sell sections are filled with opportunity to buy the scrap of your forum friendly guides.

 at 13 you read teen and seventeen, learning about girl and self.
at 31 what would you get by being a 17 aspirant’
what would you think of a 31 year old man reading boys life? 

to realize enlightenment, you must enlighten someone

Two Views

Trying to find words that reveal without condemning. Over the past several years, I have sought a shorthand for describing the commonplace avid photographer. Those who believe photography is an art, but don’t follow art. I’ve not wanted to hit them, even though their chosen position is to disparage much of what I view as constructive in a world.

Most of the <unnamed> use film and have for decades.

Exemplars

Who you know about; who you use as guide of your first efforts — these are the people of your first principles; your foundation. This foundation limits the size as well as the dimensions of growth. How big. How high.

I have known of Jungiin Lee for years, but have only recently heard of Clyde Butcher. These two serve as exemplars of two different paths. I heard of Butcher in online forums as a claimant of the mantle of Ansel Adams, and as working the manner of Hudson River School. Oddly, he misses the key to understanding the color notions, by not using color. Oh well, his real background is in selling clocks and walks.

Make no mistake, he is a success, and has been for decades. And so is Lee. These success are characteristically different. Butcher’s followers are buying art that provides functional memory of a place. Lee provides conversation with a history of art which includes photography. Her followers must understand relationships of place and object.

Their distinctions aren’t desert and swamp; they are ways of working with a place. In both people, we see continued working of their subject.

The Gallery world has accepted Jungiin Lee. Clyde Butcher has made his own gallery. In fact, he made his own destination bed and breakfast, which provides tours.

To my world, Clyde Butcher shouldn’t even be mentioned as contributor to the world of art. He is a journeyman that illustrates one journey of the weekend artist. He makes the simple seem hard, which makes it seem like art to those stuck on their first grade drawing assignment

who’s your daddy?