contemporary monkey

Can a photograph be art?  Images constructed inside the camera, or via Photoshop can be art-like, so it’s possible that photography can mimic art.  But if the image is everyday content, and it’s, well, big, does that make it more art-like?

Art World (April/May 2009) makes a “rare” interview with Andreas Gursky about his photographs (after reading the article, it’s understandable why he would be less inclined to speak to any art media).  Most of Gursky’s photographs are large, about 2 meters by 3 meters.  Most are either photographs of landscapes, or appear landscape-like due largely because of their size.  In one piece, a C-Print of a particle accelerator called “Kamiokande”, 2.2m x 3.7m, Gursky shoots a patterned wall of shiny solid globes. I suppose if I walked into someone’s house, and was faced with this image, I would call it impressive.  Mostly because of its size, not because of content.

In another of Gursky’s image, “Gas Cooker” (1980), it’s exactly that: his old gas cooker, white against a white wall.  He declares that one day it turned from a gas cooker to an image of a gas cooker, so he took the shot and reproduced it.  I’m pretty sure if I re-arranged the furniture in my sitting room one weekend, that would be more artistic than a picture of an unremarkable gas cooker.

On one occasion, Gursky claims to have had a “discussion” with his girlfriend outside, at night, when he finds himself focusing on the ground.  I guess that discussion was really only Gursky’s girlfriend having a monologue.  While looking down, he suddenly realized he was staring at a structure of a photograph.  The final result is a 1.5m x 2m picture of the ground, called “Untitled III”.  It’s the ground! How is that art??  You know those T-shirts that busty girls wear that say, “my eyes are up here (arrow pointing up)”?  Gursky’s girlfriend should get shoes with type that say, “my tits are up here”.  Oh that poor girlfriend…

This is an example of an “artist” navel gazing into their everyday surroundings in order to discover more about themselves.  A better description on this is called Art for Me, and doesn’t really need to be anywhere near public space, let alone be produced with public money.  To call photography of everyday images, regardless of their boldness, poignancy, social import, or even largesse, is not art.  It’s called photography, and any of us can, and do, do it.