Fresh Links!

What about Peter Hujar? I think Fineman places McGinley’s work astutely, but Hujar belongs on that list of “lifestyle” photographers, and especially as regards McGinley his absence is glaring.

But where does she equate McGinley’s commercial endeavors as a “liability”? She makes a distinction between art and adverstising… and there is one, isn’t there? I agree with Fineman’s insistence on higher expectations for art.

(I also buy her argument about the sense of danger in the work of Goldin and Clark, which seems to be the consequence of living marginally. What gets me is, I wouldn’t call those artists’ work “depressing”, and (at least as the article reads) McGinley might. I would call them powerful and provocative, but not depressing. McGinley says “I am absolutely not interested in making depressing images” but they are to me, and not in a good way)

The fact that McGinley’s work moves so easily between art and advertising is a liability for Fineman, a point which is evidenced by her questioning the validity of his work. She has a point, but I don’t think it can be applied even handedly across his work. For example, Tim Falling (http://www.ryanmcginley.com/photographs.php) looks like it could be an ad, but it’s also a great fine art photograph.

I tend to think McGinley’s work is very close to Goldin and Clark’s in that the photographs all exude extreme narcissism. That aspect of the work is a little grating.

wait, did McGinley come up with the branding model for Abercrombie & Fitch?

………. I’m confused, so why should we be impressed again?

This work has no merit in the context of “high art”. But what’s merit got to do with anything anyhow.

What is a “great fine art photograph”?

I guess I feel like there is an awful lot of types of experiences that advertising can’t address without losing its effectiveness. It only shows us one very narrow perspective- shiny, happy people or something. If an artist’s work can function in this way, to me it becomes highly suspicious. Goya could sneak his sinister outlook into court paintings that mocked his subjects, but McGinley can’t do something like that because he doesn’t appear interested in a depth of content that would even allow for something sinister. Again, what does he mean by “depressing images”?

Opps. I meant to highlight this one: (http://www.ryanmcginley.com/admin/recent_images/mcginley_tim_falling_2003.jpg)

I suppose in this case I think a great fine art photograph does something beyond what formalism can bring. It’s not a perfect photograph, but in this case, I think life, and a feeling of immortality pulses through the piece in such a way that it gives something more to the viewer than just an aesthetic experience.

As far as only showing us one perspective, I have to say, you may have me on that. While I think there is something to be said for the flattening effect this work has on its subjects (in the sense that everything has the feeling I speak of above), I think ultimately you’re right to be suspicious.

whatever happened to judging a person by the company they keep? You say Dash Snow’s work has no merit, than how far off could McGinely possibly be? It’s not an aesthetic issue, anybody can make a pretty picture.

Well everyone judges that way to some extent because it tends to mean something, but it isn’t always the most accurate meter of an artist’s talent. I mean, we all have friends whom we like a lot, but whose work we think sucks. Also, it seems to me McGinely has a lot riding on that relationship in regards to his own practice and photographic subject matter.

One additional note on the topic of commercial art and fine art. Helmet Newton and Annie Lebowitz both move back and forth between commercial photography, and fine art, sometimes with no distinction between what’s what, and both have made work whose value nobody questions. I can see questioning McGinely’s work – it’s not all good – but if you’re going to use that line of thinking, you should at least acknowledge figures who do it successfully, and explain what separates McGinely.

Sorry, Paddy, I have family in from out of town so I’m lagging.

I’ve been meaning to say, it’s funny because I generally file the “it’s just good art” comment under formalism, I’ve always considered that a formalist thing to say. As in, “I’m not concerned with the politics of the work/I can separate the politics from the work, and it’s just good”. I consider that formalist because you take the object as your starting point, and derive all judgement from the formal qualities. You talk about extra-aesthetic experience of the photo (“Tim Falling”), but it’s something about the way the piece looks that evokes life and the feeling of immortality.

Regarding your additional note, are you making that demand of Mia Fineman? Or the two of us involved in this discussion? For me, the situation gets sticky when there’s “no distinction between what’s what”. It seems like common practice for photographers who consider themselves involved in making “fine art” to have a commercial practice at the same time. When that practice isn’t distinguishable from the “fine art” work is when alarms sound for me, no matter the photographer. I feel there should be a distinction between those pursuits because ideologically I want art and advertising to be opposed. So, to take it out of a question of photography for a moment, when Murakami makes designer handbags it feels like a big disappointment.

Awesome comment! I guess I do take a formalist position on a lot of work.

As for the additional note, I’m making that demand of Mia Fineman, because those artists are such major players in commercial and fine art worlds, I think you have to acknowledge their success and then explain why your position doesn’t change.

I like to think of Ryan McGinley as a portraitist.

McGinley’s “Jake (Golden),” 2003, and “Jake’s Eyes,” 2003, are two fine examples.

It’s sad that because of all the hype surrounding Ryan McGinley’s work, many people overlook or ignore the mysterious almost magical moments seemingly captured fortuitously, but, in fact, are most certainly predetermined.

I should probably it make clear that I have nothing against hype!