From sensitiveness to intellectual games
This is a movement I like to watch in Arts. And in a way it depends on you.
If you see a photography
- do you prefer to feel “Aaaaweeeee!”?
- or an eyebrow movement followed by happy inner questions like “Why did he do that, what does that mean, it makes me think about this, etc”?
In the domain of Street photography I wrote already two articles about Jeff Wall
“Near Documentary” : he elaborates pictures which “look like” natural but are NOT. He can spend weeks on a single photography.
His pictures seems banal, ordinary, but with a slight feeling of “something’s wrong”, or “maybe fake”, or staged. Is it something you SEE really, or is it because you know this about his work?
Of course, there’s here this old idea than this little weirdness in the only way to really tell something about “reality”.
And this modernity which is that “Art evolves with the movement of thinking about its own limits, frontiers, its own character”.
Therefore you have two camps : real photographers, who show what’s happening in the world (to be witnesses), and staged photographers, who think & invent their images (with artistic or intellectual purposes).
Here are 4 Jeff Wall pics :
On the other side, I just discovered a “real” street photographer : Géraldine Lay. Who chooses situations and light and places so… carefully, that you’re almost SURE that it’s staged. But it’s not.
Hopper like. A too good to be true meeting. Etc… You keep watching, smiling, wondering…
Where, in other maps of your brain, do you like when two opposite ways of working result in the same “result for the audience”?
An interesting braid, right?
Thanks for reading!
Here are 4 Géraldine Lay pics :