1. Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Creepy photography...

Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by Woody, Oct 10, 2005.

  1. Woody

    Woody TRIBE Member

    A really good urban ruins photography site...

    Opacity


    I've seen this persons work before and it's always chilling... Perfect for halloween....

    An example...


    [​IMG]
     
  2. ghaleon

    ghaleon TRIBE Member

    AWESOME
    thx for the link
     
  3. basketballjones

    basketballjones TRIBE Member

    oh nos....did unique2100 get a camera?
     
  4. lucky1

    lucky1 TRIBE Member

  5. Woody

    Woody TRIBE Member

  6. annec

    annec TRIBE Member

    I second this wholeheartedly.

    There is a gallery on King West, just a half block west of Spadina showing his work.

    It really speaks to me about our relationship between material world and where it's all fabricated.

    I think the gallery is called Nicholas Metiver. Check it out--one photo shows lush greenery, a dirt road and a pile, mass, stack, of chipboards. Surreal.
     
  7. chooch

    chooch TRIBE Member

    one of burtynsky's works hangs here in our office. i <3 it~
     
  8. lucky1

    lucky1 TRIBE Member

    annec thanks for the tip.. I live around there so I'll check it out for sure!
     
  9. MoFo

    MoFo TRIBE Member

    What a hack.

    Really sweet guy. Very attractive and insightful (I use his lab and went on some tours with him). But the photos need to be pushed a bit further. Horribly installed at the AGO a while back.
     
  10. acheron

    acheron TRIBE Member

    Although seeing his works first hand is a treat (the large size of them and all), and looking past any problems with installation, I kind of prefer looking at his books - it gives me more time to study the images than I would have in a gallery setting. Best I can do given that I can't afford to purchase his work for myself.

    He's basically a reporter who takes us to places we wouldn't get to see normally - and he specializes in relationships between human industry and nature, which I love. The subjects he encounters are so enormous!
     
  11. MoFo

    MoFo TRIBE Member

    I like some of his pieces. But I find that about 80% of them are missing some sort of ooomph.

    What's funny is that Edward makes so much money, he has hiw own personal little printer (who is fucking cute btw).

    His prints sell for about 30K. Which is INSANE for a photograph.

    He has some AMAZING stories that are not depicted in these photographs. I found his display to be haphazard and mediocre. Letting a museum goer get lost in the prints can be problematic considering his main objective is to share with people what he sees. When I viewed his work at a preview, there wasn't much to guide anyone through the photographs. Sometimes, reportage, especially with this kind of documentary, needs a little text. Or a bit of a narrative.


    Quick story: I was in his studio one time and we were inspecting a print on the ground. It was HUGE so it was really difficult to handle. One of the assistants just threw it on the ground (I literally gasped) and there were tons of mistakes, dust and crinkles in it. I noted it to the guy and he was like "oh... really? ok, well I guess we have to throw this one out."

    And I'm thinking "wow, a 30K print thrown on the floor.. and now it's just gonna be trash.." I should've stole it while I had the chance. Ha.
     
  12. acheron

    acheron TRIBE Member

    there was a really good story in the New Yorker recently about the controversy over what is a legitimate Andy Warhol print and what isn't - and there are myriad court cases being fought presently to make the decision. There's actually a board of certification who evaluate prints and decide whether they have value or not. It all seems like Warhol's revenge on the art world in that he must have known the trouble he would cause later by the almost random way he produced and signed off his own work. Very few prints actually exist that were shot, printed, processed and signed off entirely by him. Most of the time, an assistant or group of assistants did the grunt work. He used different signatures, numbered inconsistantly, stamped occasionally and even publically disowned prints that were entirely legitimate. End result is that the certification board is highly political and valuation of Warhol prints is almost impossible without incurring court costs. It's as if Andy's larger statement was to declare the value and sale of art as invalid (even though he benefitted from it in his lifetime) and corrupt.
     

Share This Page