First, don't become a CPA.
Next, I love photos of interiors. Galerie MC, just a few blocks from where I live, has a terrific show up of images by Christine Callahan from her series Inheritance that features photos of her father's home, someday to be hers. Particularly strong are the two interior images in the show. Their Eggleston-like colors and perfect attention to detail speak volumes about the photographer's father and the Florida home in which he lives. Callahan's strength is in recognizing how subtle details can tell a powerful story.
.
.
Scott Peterman has a new show up at Jackson Fine Art featuring cityscapes and landscapes, the follow-up to his highly acclaimed series of ice houses. Peterman made a smart move by moving away from a very narrow subject matter to explore much broader themes allowing a recognizable style to emerge. You can tell these photographs are "Petermans" - a promising trait for any young photographer.
.
.
The most interesting photographer working today, Roger Ballen has a show up at the Atlanta College of Art Gallery that features a number of his photos from the last decade with an emphasis on his more recent work from the series Shadow Chamber. Ballen is the savior of modernist photography, something that apparently (at least to most critics) is completely overshadowed by his subject matter. When seeing this show (and you better), pay attention to the perfect composition and tonality of the photos. When it comes to photography, I'm all about content and ideas, but with Ballen's photos the content pales in comparison to the formal perfection. Given Ballen's content, that's saying something!
You can tell these photographs are "Petermans" - a promising trait for any young photographer.
Really? Or is it a sign of artistic failure that the artist's career seems more interesting to you the viewer than the content? That trait is certainly promising in that it will surely act as grease to help him shimmy into the skintight whore's dress of the name-brand commodity artist if he decides to go that way, but why should we care? Why should his career be the primary lens through which we view the work? By the way, I'm taking you, not the artist, to task here. The artist presumably is just making pictures.
Honestly asking.
Right on!
Posted by: Cinqué | March 25, 2006 at 03:04 PM
I think that Cinque misses the point. There is more to an artist's development than trying to shimmy into the skintight whore's dress. In fact, Erik seems to be commenting on the difficulty that an emerging artist encounters trying to define their own voice. Though I am not a Peterman fan, I understand the point Erik is illustrating.
Posted by: jeffrey | March 25, 2006 at 03:25 PM
Well, no, I didn't miss the point. I just question whether that point should be the focus in discussing the work. It's funny also that Erik momentarily slips into that weird, gushy, Entertainment Weekly language that is the default writing style of boostery publications like Artnet. Erik is a *much* more insightful writer than this, which is why it's weird. I agree, it's thrilling when artists find their own voice. The difference between that and having a "recognizable syle," however, is like the difference between tiramisu and a twinkie.
Posted by: Cinqué | March 25, 2006 at 04:14 PM
What I saw in the Peterman show was an artist in development. Perhaps "recognizable style" was not the best term to use. Despite the fact that this is not a particularly strong body of work, it is clear that Peterman has a vision and is trying to make it a singular and expansive one. In this work, I see Peterman trying to break free of the "guy who takes pictures of icehouses" label while trying to maintain a link to that work stylistically.
Posted by: Erik Schneider | March 26, 2006 at 08:20 AM
Go blow yourself Cinque!
Posted by: Cinque Hater | March 28, 2006 at 09:35 PM