Ryan McGinley, Ann (Windy Truck), 2007, c-print, 72 x 110 inches. Image copyright of Team Gallery
I have an online exclusive at the L Magazine this week; Ryan McGinley at Team Gallery. A teaser from the review below:
Ryan McGinley critics describe the narrative behind his photographs something like this, “My friends are pretty. And we get naked in the country. Usually there are drugs. Rad! So subversive.” That his 30 plus photographs of nudes in undeveloped landscapes currently on display at Team Gallery might be as vapid as the lifestyle they depict certainly hold weight as a criticism, even if McGinley’s acclaim comes from his ability to transcend the documentary youth culture genre. Earlier photographs, including a picture of a young man riding his bike taken from above in 2000, a 2004 image of a nude woman named Dakota, sipping a drink from a straw in the back of a moving truck, and a number of silhouetted figures captured in the midst of falling evade the cry of overly narcissistic photography frequently attached to like minded photographer Nan Goldin, and at least some of the moral depravity for which Larry Clark has been criticized. At their best, McGinley’s flat, unassuming representation of friends and models exhibit a rare honesty and contemporary uniqueness updating the lexicon of gay photography.
Of course, part of the excitement to these photographs comes from the fact that their attributes are seemingly at odds with a slightly staged look. As former Whitney curator of photography Sylvia Wolf, wisely explained last year to the New York Times, “His subjects are performing for the camera and exploring themselves with an acute self-awareness that is decidedly contemporary. They are savvy about visual culture, acutely aware of how identity can be not communicated but created”.
Given the fact that many of these photographs were partly arranged to begin with, it’s not too surprising that McGinley might grow tired of waiting for a picture to happen, a change in process he noted in the same Times article quoted above. The question of how much the artist gains from staging his work however, plays out rather negatively since much of the narrative remains the same, and many photos now look overly contrived. Even the most successful shots, Ann (Windy Truck), Brennan (Clear Poncho), and Coley (injured), feel a little too posed, the models taking on a strange contemplative sadness overly familiar within the genre. The latter two do a reasonable job at juxtaposing alluring textures such as that of skin with unexpected synthetic and natural materials respectively, but it’s a small success. The weakest works, Together Running, an obscured nudes in mountain Where’s Waldo photograph, and virtually anything from this cliché round of naked hipster women surrounded by fireworks leaves a viewer wondering why so much plotting should be required for such poorly conceived shots.
The rest of the review here.
{ 41 comments }
I looked at the work online. It’s cliche and repressed. The light and the color is indeed pretty. Not beautiful, but pretty. He should move/stay in commercial fashion photography with this kind of work.
I looked at the work online. It’s cliche and repressed. The light and the color is indeed pretty. Not beautiful, but pretty. He should move/stay in commercial fashion photography with this kind of work.
I completely agree.
I completely agree.
Two grimy hipster thumbs up for that review.
Justine Kurland, Sally Mann, Anthony Goicolea and Anna Gaskell (to some extent) shoot great figurative work that doesn’t rely so heavily on “slacker chic” to be successful.
70s B-porn already did this and did this better.
Two grimy hipster thumbs up for that review.
Justine Kurland, Sally Mann, Anthony Goicolea and Anna Gaskell (to some extent) shoot great figurative work that doesn’t rely so heavily on “slacker chic” to be successful.
70s B-porn already did this and did this better.
Two grimy hipster thumbs up for that review.
Justine Kurland, Sally Mann, Anthony Goicolea and Anna Gaskell (to some extent) shoot great figurative work that doesn’t rely so heavily on “slacker chic” to be successful.
70s B-porn already did this and did this better.
Oh wait, duh. I knew it looked familiar.
It’s Abercrombie and Fitch for hipsters.
Oh wait, duh. I knew it looked familiar.
It’s Abercrombie and Fitch for hipsters.
Oh wait, duh. I knew it looked familiar.
It’s Abercrombie and Fitch for hipsters.
great review. I can’t dismiss his work enough although maybe i would enjoy it more if there were a greater number of pictures featuring Dakota.
great review. I can’t dismiss his work enough although maybe i would enjoy it more if there were a greater number of pictures featuring Dakota.
Yea, I too feel like those are the strongest shots.
Yea, I too feel like those are the strongest shots.
Yea, I too feel like those are the strongest shots.
i wonder if she’d be too dificult for him to work with on an extended project, or even if they’re still friends.
Are any of these people still friendly with him after these long exploititive journey’s?
i wonder if she’d be too dificult for him to work with on an extended project, or even if they’re still friends.
Are any of these people still friendly with him after these long exploititive journey’s?
i wonder if she’d be too dificult for him to work with on an extended project, or even if they’re still friends.
Are any of these people still friendly with him after these long exploititive journey’s?
Well, they get paid now, so I suspect they are still friends. He told the Times a 3 month shoot costs him $100,000.
Well, they get paid now, so I suspect they are still friends. He told the Times a 3 month shoot costs him $100,000.
Well, they get paid now, so I suspect they are still friends. He told the Times a 3 month shoot costs him $100,000.
It’s interesting to compare a body of work like this to Richard Kern’s. Kern makes no bones about having a jones (hey a rhyme) for the beauty of women of a certain age (20s). And his models seem to enjoy being themselves and being “hot.” In a way his work is more pornographic for being so fixated on that kind of obvious beauty, but ultimately more honest for not having this traveling roadshow of paid friends creating a vision of a Nan Goldinesque unrepressed lifestyle-cum-Garden of Eden-cum-nudist camp that has “good photographic values” and just coincidentally happens to appeal to the prurient desires of art world collectors, advertising consumers, and their assorted respective procurers. The Team press release describes McGinley’s process of sitting around with his models studying old nudist camp photos as a way of planning the day’s shoot–this suggests the worst kind of poMo calculation as opposed to just enjoying a hard-on. (Now that I think of it, the hard-ons of McGinley’s earlier work are notably lacking here–maybe it’s the drugs.)
And hmmm, your last post on McGinley brought his defenders out in force. Where are they?
It’s interesting to compare a body of work like this to Richard Kern’s. Kern makes no bones about having a jones (hey a rhyme) for the beauty of women of a certain age (20s). And his models seem to enjoy being themselves and being “hot.” In a way his work is more pornographic for being so fixated on that kind of obvious beauty, but ultimately more honest for not having this traveling roadshow of paid friends creating a vision of a Nan Goldinesque unrepressed lifestyle-cum-Garden of Eden-cum-nudist camp that has “good photographic values” and just coincidentally happens to appeal to the prurient desires of art world collectors, advertising consumers, and their assorted respective procurers. The Team press release describes McGinley’s process of sitting around with his models studying old nudist camp photos as a way of planning the day’s shoot–this suggests the worst kind of poMo calculation as opposed to just enjoying a hard-on. (Now that I think of it, the hard-ons of McGinley’s earlier work are notably lacking here–maybe it’s the drugs.)
And hmmm, your last post on McGinley brought his defenders out in force. Where are they?
It’s interesting to compare a body of work like this to Richard Kern’s. Kern makes no bones about having a jones (hey a rhyme) for the beauty of women of a certain age (20s). And his models seem to enjoy being themselves and being “hot.” In a way his work is more pornographic for being so fixated on that kind of obvious beauty, but ultimately more honest for not having this traveling roadshow of paid friends creating a vision of a Nan Goldinesque unrepressed lifestyle-cum-Garden of Eden-cum-nudist camp that has “good photographic values” and just coincidentally happens to appeal to the prurient desires of art world collectors, advertising consumers, and their assorted respective procurers. The Team press release describes McGinley’s process of sitting around with his models studying old nudist camp photos as a way of planning the day’s shoot–this suggests the worst kind of poMo calculation as opposed to just enjoying a hard-on. (Now that I think of it, the hard-ons of McGinley’s earlier work are notably lacking here–maybe it’s the drugs.)
And hmmm, your last post on McGinley brought his defenders out in force. Where are they?
Kern is a really good counter point to this I think because his work is completely unapologetic for his interest in sex and young girls and thus, as you say a little more honest for doing so. I just don’t see any reason to be spending 100,000 for a three month shoot, when McGinley did it before for free and with better results. The work feels like it’s made for collectors.
I don’t know where the McGinley defenders went for this post either. It seems pretty unlikely that any of this conversation would disrupt the, “they’re the most beautiful photographs I’ve ever seen” arguments that tend to be made in the comments of this blog.
Kern is a really good counter point to this I think because his work is completely unapologetic for his interest in sex and young girls and thus, as you say a little more honest for doing so. I just don’t see any reason to be spending 100,000 for a three month shoot, when McGinley did it before for free and with better results. The work feels like it’s made for collectors.
I don’t know where the McGinley defenders went for this post either. It seems pretty unlikely that any of this conversation would disrupt the, “they’re the most beautiful photographs I’ve ever seen” arguments that tend to be made in the comments of this blog.
Kern is a really good counter point to this I think because his work is completely unapologetic for his interest in sex and young girls and thus, as you say a little more honest for doing so. I just don’t see any reason to be spending 100,000 for a three month shoot, when McGinley did it before for free and with better results. The work feels like it’s made for collectors.
I don’t know where the McGinley defenders went for this post either. It seems pretty unlikely that any of this conversation would disrupt the, “they’re the most beautiful photographs I’ve ever seen” arguments that tend to be made in the comments of this blog.
I think you summed it up well and I was glad to hear some of my own thoughts and irritation about this work put to words. I find his celebrity and success an embarrassment to art world, especially since there are gay artists making work of real substance and this is what gets celebrated.
I think you summed it up well and I was glad to hear some of my own thoughts and irritation about this work put to words. I find his celebrity and success an embarrassment to art world, especially since there are gay artists making work of real substance and this is what gets celebrated.
I think you summed it up well and I was glad to hear some of my own thoughts and irritation about this work put to words. I find his celebrity and success an embarrassment to art world, especially since there are gay artists making work of real substance and this is what gets celebrated.
I’ve been fascinated by McGinley’s ability to convey a sense of mischief in his photographs that I’ve rarely seen from anyone else.
I’ve been fascinated by McGinley’s ability to convey a sense of mischief in his photographs that I’ve rarely seen from anyone else.
I’ve been fascinated by McGinley’s ability to convey a sense of mischief in his photographs that I’ve rarely seen from anyone else.
I don’t think anyone needs to defend Ryan.
I believe if you think a photograph such as “Falling Cornfield” is one of the most beautiful photographs you have ever seen…why not say so?…as I did : )
I find it hysterical that the comments about Ryan AND Ryan’s work are always so mean-spirited…I hope he’s not losing any sleep!
wow, interesting that you find the criticism of his work “hysterical”, but whatever – fact is, the work is crap. Is that mean spirited, or just my opinion? I’m not being mean, I just think it’s crap – not terrible though, just not “art” – here understood as creative work that makes you feel or think something.
I don’t think anyone needs to defend Ryan.
I believe if you think a photograph such as “Falling Cornfield” is one of the most beautiful photographs you have ever seen…why not say so?…as I did : )
I find it hysterical that the comments about Ryan AND Ryan’s work are always so mean-spirited…I hope he’s not losing any sleep!
I don’t think anyone needs to defend Ryan.
I believe if you think a photograph such as “Falling Cornfield” is one of the most beautiful photographs you have ever seen…why not say so?…as I did : )
I find it hysterical that the comments about Ryan AND Ryan’s work are always so mean-spirited…I hope he’s not losing any sleep!
this is wat i beat to
this is wat i beat to
this is wat i beat to
He should be shooting fashion – but I guess then he’d have to deal with clothing.
Comments on this entry are closed.