From: Christopher Lovenguth (chrisml@pacbell.net)
Date: 10/10/03-03:32:18 PM Z
Ha, I thought I'd throw it all in the subject line. I've been gone all
summer but have kept up with topics without the ability to reply.
Anyway, the reason for the subject line is that upon returning to San
Francisco, I went to my local favorite bookstore to find Sally Mann has a
new book out. Not being able to fork out $50 for it, I looked at it in-store
for about an hour. Her new work, even from many years ago with her southern
landscapes, I very much put in the category of Neo-Pictorialism.
I think the reason we are seeing (and myself personally working in) this
reclaiming of "Pictorialism" is the fact I think artist (speaking of
photographers specifically here) are moving back in to self/environment
exploration and manipulation of composition to get a point across, instead
of a kind of documentation approach that has dominated images for about
20-25 years. With this, I think artist want to set themselves visually at a
distance from snapshot and F64 like work. Pictorialism is an easy way to do
that. I think neo-pictorialism is also why you have seen a huge increase in
alt process work being done.
Now the reason for the Witkin tag in the subject line is that I'm quite
confused at the majority of Sally Mann's new book and wanted to get input in
to what you all think. I feel her cadaver (or decaying bodies whatever it
actually is) work seems to almost be a "have a new toy and want to play with
it" as grotesque as it sounds. I understand she is exploring her new
appreciation for death, but I'm still confused as to what she actually is
doing here. The reason I bring up Witkin is for comparison, which I find
appropriate. In his work, he is exploring the beauty in object be it alive
or dead (not to start a whole new Witkin debate here) and I find his work
for the time intriguing. But with Mann's work, I find it almost
exploitation. It is as if her landscape work after her family images wasn't
doing as well because of lack of controversy or whatever. Mann is one of the
primary reasons I do what I do. I have always held her as a standard for
composition, lighting, printmaking, imagery and impact on the viewer. I feel
that if I could do just half of what she does, I'd consider my image a
success. But this new work just has me confused. I do however; love her
portraits in the back of the book and sort of wish that she had focused more
on that.
Sorry to have thrown it all together but I didn't want to write more then
one email.
-Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/05/03-09:22:17 AM Z CST