He’s described the eyes as subversive because “they are free when used freely” – that is, they ascribe value to what’s seen in front of them, no matter how expensive or banal the subject. But although many of his still lifes show ostensibly everyday scenes, in fact many are staged, and if they’re not, they’ve acquired meaning for him over a long time before shooting.Unfortunately it wasn’t practical to visit the exhibition – it was 350 miles away to start with – so I’ve been scratching round the web trying to find some more material by and about this guy. Unsurprisingly he has a website and it has links to a number of tour catalogues which have a range of his work, and some fairly detailed essays.
On the basis of the works presented his still life work is rather different from what I expected. They have a rather grungy feel to them, and it is rather left to the viewer to extract the beauty that he apparently sees in them. On the other hand his rather more formal Paper Drop photos are quite beautiful. There is some suggestion that there is a deeper meaning associated with the ability to see both sides of the photo at once, but I think I’ll need a little more research to decide whether I think that was his intent, or a subsequent reading of the images.
His portraits, which are largely of his friends vary from the touchingly intimate – you can almost feel the friendship being expressed in the photo – to the frankly disturbing – Man Pissing on a Chair for example. Again – it’s going to take a bit more thought and research on my part to work out what’s going on here.
No comments:
Post a Comment