decay # 48 / civilized ku # 2446 ~ found / made
Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 12:26PM 
Rocks in outdoor sink ~ Phonicia, NY - in the Catskill Park • click to embiggen
Cornbread, orange peels, beet • click to embiggenWhile I was in Montreal, I came across the pictures of Claudio Napolitano. One of his pictures - # 13 in the linked portfolio - was in a gallery window and it most definitely caught my eye. Entering the gallery, # 2, 5 (kid with gas mask), and 9 were also on display. # 19, not on display, was listed as sold. FYI, most of the prints* were in the 36"×48" range (# 19 was 40"×80") with plexiglass adhered to the front of the print and mounted on aluminum (no frames). The price was $4,500 Canadian.
After spending some time viewing the prints, my initial caught-my-eye impression started to fade. The work just seemed contrived, ala Gregory Crewdson, and rather too "slick". I had expected to like the pictures but, in fact, they left me kinda cold. Eye catching, yes, in a weird kinda way, but, beyond the weirdness, they didn't strike much of an emotional / intellectual chord with me.
Consequently, upon returning home and reading (online) his bio and Artist Statement, I discovered that Napolitano is a highly regarded advertising picture maker. At that point, my feelings about the "slick" feel of the work and the contrived look of the children started to make sense. Obviously, Napolitano has brought all of his advertising picture making virtuoso to his Fine Art picture making. To my eye and sensibilities, that picturing M.O. was the reason for my ultimately rather cool, but not dismissive, reaction to the work.
All of which got me to thinking about made pictures, as opposed to found pictures. Part of where those ruminations led was to my experience with John Pfahl (pictures here), a Fine Art picture maker of some renown.
Back in the early 80s while he was teaching at RIT, Pfahl visited my studio at the behest of a friend (who also taught at RIT). The purpose of his visit was a meet and greet and for him to have an opportunity to view my personal / non-commercial pictures. Long story short, he was impressed with my personal work but he was utterly perplexed with the fact that I was a commercial / advertising picture maker and a Fine Art picture maker. That was due to the fact that, at that time, the two disciplines rarely, if ever, met within the same picture maker - advertising was advertising, Fine Art was Fine Art, and that was the way it was. Period.
That written, fast forward to today's Fine Art World, Photography Division, there are quite a few advertising picture makers who are also making Fine Art pictures. For better or for worse, that's the way it currently is. And, for the most part, those picture making practitioners are making made pictures. That is to write, pictures which are heavy on the concept side, not so much on the reality side.
In any event, I have no prejudice**, re: made pictures or, for that matter, advertising picture makers who make Fine Art pictures (I am one, after all). However, that written, my made picture preference runs toward those pictures which exhibit at least a modicum of found picture visual quality. Like, say, Jeff Wall's pictures as opposed to those of Gregory Crewdson - both make made pictures but Wall eschews the theatrical flourish production values employed by Crewdson.
All of that written, one of the many much-to-my-liking attributes of the previously mentioned Photo - wisdom. Master Photographers on Their Art book is that the book showcases mainly, but not exclusively, the work of those picture makers who make found pictures or pictures which look as though they might be of the found variety.
One of the notable exceptions to the found / found-like work is the pictures of Loretta Lux, whose work I find to be fascinating on so many levels ...
.... which brings me back to where this entry began, the work of Claudio Napolitano. Even though his pictures of children are of a type - children, distorted - which could be categorized with those of Loretta Lux, I just can't seem to warm up to them. The pictures are just too advertising slick in their visual appearance, whereas, I find Lux's pictures to be far more biased toward the world of Fine Art and, therefore, much more pleasing to my eye and sensibilities.
In summation, and relative to all of the aforewritten, I close with a quote from Joel Meyerowitz:
A lot of people put their intellectual concerns first with photography, but I think it is a discipline that is at first a visceral one. The primary aspect of this whole engagement with, and through, photography is to try to understand what your instincts are. Don't go counter to that, learn what the feeling is ... [I]f you keep following your every instinct - you want to get closer, kneel down, or jump up two steps - then just do it. The results will describe to you who you are. The visceral and the intuitive side will combine to show your intellect as a photographer. (emphasis mine)
*FYI, most of the prints were in the 36"×48" range (# 19 was 40"×80") with plexiglass adhered to the front of the print and mounted on aluminum (no frames). The price was $4,500 Canadian.
**That is, no prejudice with the exception of those pictures which are so concept driven that they become little more than visual and photo vernacular gibberish - those pictures most favored by the academic lunatic fringe.
Reader Comments (3)
I am always amused when I hear of 3 feet by 4 feet (or larger) prints hanging in these fancy art galleries that cost 1000s of dollars. Its the high fashion of today, I suppose, because everyone seems to be doing it.
Happy new year Mark. I hope you are keeping well.
This was a great post for me. In part, your preferences align precisely with mine - Wall over Crewdson, a fascination with Loretta Lux - but mostly in the sense of having a preference for the found photograph. The Meyerowitz quote sums it up beautifully.
For me, I think I'd add that I enjoy photography that is experiential. Where the photograph is as much about the experience of the photographer being there when the photograph was made as it is about the thing being photographed.
Admittedly I am not too fond of the conceptual concept - it's just a matter of personaly preference, and maybe learning. But John Pfahl's images I do remember from my beginnings of photography 3 decades back when reading through the public library's photography books, and his concept I did find convincing already at that time. I still do remember quite a number of the pictures I've seen back then. They require some sort of - for the lack of a better word - viewer's intelligence, while Napolitano's (at least those that I found from your link) are too easy, too obvious, too "clean as a whistle".