Graeme, THANK YOU. This is my favourite of the videos you’ve made. RUclips is populated almost wall-to wall with hagiography. Thank you for your thoughtful and considered reservations about Tillmans. There has to be a place for true criticism. It has become very rare. Well done.
Some years ago I used to listen to the audio of a Tillmans lecture to get to sleep.His voice is so monotone, it was highly effective. It's in real contrast to his photography which is the engaging, rich, free photographic expressiveness of a life lived. Your bemused-crowd watching, disdain for informal hanging and justifiable wariness of 'artspeak' may be getting in your own way a little bit. The 'photographic merit' you crave is absolutely here in my opinion. It's in the subtle observing with a camera, the reacting and the making. It's in the framing, the sensitivity to colour and light, the numerous recurring themes, whether its the flotsam on people's windowsills, sexuality, hanging with celebs, the sky or the curve of a sheet of photographic paper. There's no need to ramp it up to something more than that, which I would agree with you on. Frank and Shore were treated with disdain and indifference initially. They didn't do what was recognised as 'good photography'. The Americans' was famously battered in early reviews and hardly anyone went to the first New Topographics show in 1975-76. But the same interesting compulsions and drive are at work in Tillmans and like with those other photographers, and Eggleston, it's up to us to form our own judgment if what he comes up with add up to anything or not. He may not be your cup of tea for all sorts of peripheral reasons but if you don't get anything from his pictures there's nothing wrong with that. Best wishes Pete
Hi Pete I am happy that you get something out of his work. I don't think that one can argue about the presence or absence of merit - it would be very boring if just my concept of art was allowed to be displayed. Thanks for responding.
Thank you for articulating so well a feeling that I have had for years about this work, made both of appreciation and puzzlement. Until I met Tillmans and talked to him I was just dismissive of the work, could n to believe this could be on the walls of reputable galleries, museums and festivals. My conversation with him was very interesting and challenging (for me) as he is an intelligent, well-meaning. I thoroughly enjoyed it but it did not really help my appreciation of the work itself which now sounds more like soliloquy than anything. As for Eggleston his vision is coherent (without explanation) but many photographs are overrated, also part of a fad mainly started by Szarkowski, that has made many people ignore that he was definitely not the first color photographer with a consistent body of work. He is more accessible than Tillmans (who is somewhat smarter and more articulate) but not such a "G' as many people have said.
I do agree that Eggleston would have benefited from a strict editor. He also has a huge number of images that I really like, while Mr Tillman's has very few.
Really appreciate your genuine critical engagement; it is both thought provoking and makes your channel stand out amongst the loud a noisy YT platform. 👍🏻
I didn’t know that he made such a career. During the mid 80s and early 90s he was the photographer of THE german underground/post-punk hipster-left music magazine SPEX. His work from these years, documenting german subculture, esp. the evolving techno culture in Berlin was far different. People like you, who are capable of serious criticism instead of “dissing “ people are rare. We need more of this.❤
I appreciate your intelligent critique of a photographer that changed my view on what photos can be. The democracy within Wolfgang's work is the key, for sure. but it is the aspect of documentation of change that I feel delighted to see. It is that shift he made, from club work to fashion to everything, that is impressive for me. It is a certain curiosity and sensuality he never agreed to lose after growing older and older, and which I see many artists losing after they reach a certain level. It is also the sound of his photos. Probably because of the synesthesia I carry with me, it is easy for me to associate images with sounds, and Tillmans has a gift for picturing silence. Especially, easily seen in his portraiture work.
I really appreciate you being critical of art, most youtubers simply present the artist and follow the narrative that "this person is indeed a celebrated artist". Like if it's in a museum that means it's automatically good art and there's no need to argue because someone made the decision for you. We need to have standards.
Another example of how contemporary art is all about the truth that tells a lie, and post-modernism is the instrument and condition of this reversal. I don't question his sincerity or the sincerity of the artists that have this misunderstanding of the work of Eggleston or Shore, but there isn't an ounce of joy, mystery, love, perplexity or rapture is this sort of work. Much of contemporary photography feels hateful of the medium itself without being explicit about that hate. In any case, another great video, so glad I found your channel!!!
Very honest and straightforward! I left at 8:27 because you had cut to the chase by then =put your perceptions in order and they made sense. I’m with you 100%. I think most of it’s about marketing. Thank you.
I agree 100% with you. I have visited his exhibition(s) and left with the same uneasy feeling that his work was simplistic, and that his rise as an art icon was manufactured by those who trade in the big money art market. Even though I get the idea of the democratization of the image, as you pointed out, that was already proposed many years ago. Additionally, the fact that his merit has to be justified by "word salads" as you rightly say, makes the whole enterprise dubious at best. Thanks for the video, in my opinion, it was well though and on point about a subject matter that it is becoming more important by the day: are we going to connect with artistic merit, or are we going to accept elaborate verbal explanations as a substitute for meaningful artistic expression?
@@PhotoConversationsYeah, I have always thought that if someone has to explain the joke, probably it was not that funny after all. Good day, and thank you for your posts.
@@PhotoConversations I fear that may never happen, as collectors are quite often not collecting for any sort of aesthetic merit; the grand sums are driven up by cold market forces. Perhaps Tillmans' work has risen to such heights because of its very specific lack of meaning. To which any word salad could be attached, and thereby justifying grand sums of money to those lost in the swirl of those explanations.
I have enjoyed your videos so far for the profound research and analysis of the work of various artists. This one is the first (that I know of) where a true and honest search for meaning and value makes you give a thumbs-down. I have often failed myself to see or feel artistic value in post-modernist artistic creations despite long and elaborate supporting text. Though I fully share the opinion on this specific work, I feel that the most commendable thing here is your intellectual honesty in articulating a well justified opinion. Your work makes RUclips s better place. I would love to see more of this. Thank you and well done sir.
Thanks for that! Yes, initially, I thought that I should only talk about work that I value, and I am still trying to figure out how to expand into the area of criticism without being 'opinionated' or just an asshole.
@@PhotoConversations Oh they will call you that and worse. Online hate is the "tax" we have to pay for having freedom of speech. It's painful but overall worth it I think. As for criticism, there is no way better than the one you chose: Defining the principle as best as possible and then comparing to it. Thanks and please keep up.
What a brilliant video. I liked your analysis of Tillman's work and agree with your comparison of it to Egglestone's. You remain humble in your analysis and open to other opinions. Top !
What an important video! I can’t think of anyone who would or who could pull of a balanced, thoughtful but sceptical video like this. This video inspired me to reach out to a (local) photographer who is a fan of Tillman’s. He was helpful. I got to see more of his work. But I think you got it about right here. It just occurred to me that a powerful counter-example to Tillman’s manner of display are the chapters of Ways of Seeing without text. Or the long purely visual essay in Another Way of Telling.
Thank you for posting this and your other thoughtful, intelligent critiques of photographers' work. They stand far above the most popular RUclips photo channel mediocrats. (Did I just invent a word?) Have you done Abbas or Riboud?
We should do an experiment: smuggle in a couple of random instagram pictures into one of Tillmans exhibitions and see if visitors art critics would notice. If they don't notice, maybe we do not need that particular vision of Wolfgang.
I have to agree with you Graeme. Democratisation in terms of accessibility, voice or subject matter is great but some discernment of quality, however subjective, is still necessary for any art form to grow, advance and survive. When one considers some of the of the people who have come before, such as Diane Arbus, I don't see Tillman's work contributing to the canon of the genre. Just my own opinion.
Thank goodness for this review. When I first saw Tillman’s work I was thoroughly unimpressed and that I was artistically naive. Now I see that my first impressions were right. I wonder if Tate and MoMA would have the same enthusiasm for crappy paintings…?
Thanks Ed. That is how the museums get away with this type of thing - they tell you its good and make you feel naive if you think it is crappy. As far as the Tate and Moma go - it depends who makes the crappy paintings.
I have no idea what I could draw from his pictures, individually or as a collection. Maybe it's anti-art? Having said that, if anyone wants to pay insane amounts for the random pictures I took as an 8 year old in 70s Berlin- get in touch!
I agree with the idea of excellence but I must highlight my surprise when Ive bought his book by tashen during the '90 at the time I was studying on big format traditional camera and his style totally disrupted any previous concept of photography and abruptly brought me back to my era.
I found this critique very helpful. If his work is all about inclusivity and all photographs are equal, then how does he select for exhibition? What is his criterion for displaying work? What photos does he save and what does he delete? Furthermore why is his work on gallery walls and not mine!!!! Outside of the gallery space how would I feel if someone presented one of his photographs to me without his name attached? I suspect I wouldn't feel very engaged or moved, just baffled.
Great insights Graeme. I play a mind game with myself when considering any art purchase. If I visualize an “artist (photographer) unknown” caption below the piece, would I still want it hanging in my home? Of course, purchasing as an investment and not enjoyment is a whole different ballgame, and one I care not to play.
Here is an amateurs's view: when i first saw his photos i thought they were a bit ugly and not pleasing to the eye. The photos of William Eggleston and Stephen Shore and especially Lewis Baltz and Robert Adams had the opposite effect.
So much to unpack here. For starters, any visual art that relies on explanations for its impact fails, in my eyes. A big difference between Tillmans and Eggleston is that Eggleston did it first. He made us first consider the beauty of the banal. Tillmans is retreading old ground. His work is often banal for banal's sake, revealing nothing. Some of his work is beautiful and powerful some is not; he dilutes the better work with the lesser stuff in the name of some fantasy democracy.
Yes but Eggleston is very far from doing it first! And, by the way, this clear-sighted and well-articulated sentence also applies to Eggleston, don't you think/ "Some of his work is beautiful and powerful some is not; he dilutes the better work with the lesser stuff in the name of some fantasy democracy."
@@BrunoChalifour By first I just meant before Tillmans. Thanks for the compliment on the sentence. I too find some of Eggleston's work less engaging, but am more forgiving as, first or not, he was breaking new ground and didn't expect you to accept all of the work in the name of some pomo theory of democracy. Tillmans' arty bollocks just seems an easy way to escape criticism of shoddy work.
Much of the contemporary art flowing today fails to bring art under the yoke of articulate, almost academic, thought. In a work of art the artist's own thought is dispensable. In that sense, the democratization of sensations, with artists like Tillmans, comes to try to save the spectator from the hell of "truth" and take him towards unsafe terrain, where the sensations caused by inconnectivity prevail and the spectator can relates to the world from a purely sensual angle.
Thanks for commenting Luis. I get what you're saying and I know that this was his aim for the work. However, I cannot feel this transition from 'the hell of truth' into to some form of sensual freedom. As the Dude says in the Big Lebowski, 'Yeah, well that's just your opinion, man." Which is as valid as mine.
It is really very difficult to form an evaluative judgment of these "photographic works" just by watching a video about this "artist". In order to do so, I would have to follow his exhibitions, consult his books, his catalogues, etc. and only then could I give an opinion about his work. The strong idea that appears in my mind is the following, these, like many others, are artistic-social phenomena that can manifest only in highly developed countries, in urban-cultural centers that own all and all academic institutions, museums and galleries. very renowned, recognized and accepted as legitimizing what is art and what they consider is not. They are the powerful owners of the Art Market and it will be this, without any other argument that is not economic, that will determine what is valid or what is the truth. It's hard but that's how it is. The inhabitants of the South of the planet...who live "below" the world with real power, see all this problem flying thousands of meters above our heads. And, although such phenomena also occur in these corners of the world, they are always a faint shadow of those in the USA and Europe. To be brief, I totally agree with you and I thank you very much for your videos because you are one of the few that I have met in these media who speaks sensibly, with real knowledge and humility.
The point of much contemporary art is that nothing is ever objective. As you mention, Tillman's statement "if one thing matters, everything matters" is essentially nihilistic and in the end, self refuting much like the statement that "all sentences are false". In that regard such art is essentially childishness that is popularized by pseudo-intellectual patrons who themselves delight in the destruction of meaning and truth without understanding the consequences. In that regard work like Tillman's is not really art at all.
I don’t disagree with your assessment. The art critics du jour going gaga over his work in fact somewhat diminishes what I think he’s trying to do, in an emperor-with-no-clothes way. I’d classify him as an explorer artist, providing a jolt to the system that is always needed for progress, though I don’t have a strong opinion of this particular jolt’s potential for success. The main difference between Tillmans and Egglestone, to me, is Egglestone’s work is always relatable. I’m yet to find any of Tillmans’ photos that makes me feel that.
It is uncomfortable to view because it is an almost perfect reflection of so much of the modern world. Banality abounds in the 2020s. His work is utterly banal and, therefore, perfectly observed. This then leaves you with banal work to try and enjoy. If you can, then i applaud you. I dont much like his individual works (a lot of it reminds me of what happens if i give my 7 year old a camera for the day) but i appreciate it at the level I outlined above.
I've never seen any of his work and he and I come from a different perspective. By the looks of it I'd like some of it and others bits would wash over me, but hey ho that would probably happen with anybody's work; it certainly does with Ansel Adams and Cartier Bresson. Having said that I'm with any artist/photographer doing their own thing, no problem with them pursuing their own agenda (whether I agree with it or not) and I'm reasonably cool with him raking in the money. The problem comes when people are paid unreasonable amounts to interpret the work and come up with BS explanations and meanings. If gullible people are willing to pay millions for a photo as an investment they aught to take a good hard look at themselves; plenty of hospitals and foodbanks could do with the odd $10,000. I guess the point is - is he genuine in his viewpoint or is he intentionally taking people for a ride; you could ask the same of Eggleston, Martin Parr, Da Vinci or J.S. Lowry, etc, etc ... whether I subjectively like it is irrelevant !
I am always open to being shown to be wrong, but Tilman's work feels stuck in the 80s.I listened to so much justification for Conceptual Art back then that I developed an aversion to it. It always struck me that, devoid as it is, of emotion, all that is left is intellectual musings, and verbiage. There is a place for emotion-free intellectualism, but I don't think it is in an Art Gallery.
I can only comment based on what I feel and see. Have never been to a Tillman’s exhibition, and only seen one of his books, so maybe I don’t have the knowledge to say much, but based on the shots of his exhibition on your video, my general impression is one of confusion. The comments by the female curator (?) struck me as meaningless, designed to increase the hype surrounding his work and the prestige of the gallery showing it. I am always suspicious if it takes that many words to say what something is about. So I am not a fan. Great video though.
Thank you for finding some critical words about Tillmans. In my opinion he is completely overrated, a product of time that will vanish when times are changing...
If you swapped out a third of his images at a showing with those of a nine year old's, could anyone tell? I'm going to ask Midjourney to produce a Tillmans-like body of work,.. just to confuse the algorithm.
I want to add to this discussion that even when we talk about the aesthetic value and significance of the work of such photographers like Shore, Eggleston, Cartier-Bresson, Meyerowitz, Adams, Evans, etc. they all represent a mostly White, male, Eurocentric/ Western worldview. This focus on photography from the most privileged regions fails to include contributions from other parts of the world and the vision and styles from photographers from minoritized groups. It excludes entire continents giving the false idea that only "good", "creative," "thought-provoking, "meaningful" art emerges almost exclusively from the USA and European nations. In my case, coming from the Caribbean with a strong Latin American heritage I find myself critically analyzing the body of work of these "canonical" photographers. On many occasions it is difficult to relate or understand what's behind their work. Art does have such a subjective aspect, but added to that the imposition of aesthetic values and hierarchies generated by certain groups of people on others makes me think there's still a lot of work to do.
I was trying to add here some links to websites but I guess RUclips gives me a hard time, maybe thinking it is spam. anyways, you can check the African Photography Network, Visura magazine, Fotografas Latam (women in photography from Latin America) and other photographers like Pedro Meyer, Graciela Iturbide, Sebastiao Salgado, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Erika P. Rodriguez and Manuel Rivera-Ortiz (Puerto Rico) and Marlon James (Jamaica).
Hi Lorenzo Thanks for that list. I have done a video on Sebastiao and the two Manuels are on my list. I didn't know Pedro Meyer, but I like his work. The others, I will have to spend some time with. Feel free to send more if they come to mind.
I'm trying to understand the first sentence in your post. Eggleston et al are white western males. How does that impact how we "talk about the aesthetic and significance" of their own work. Are they required to be other than what they are? Are they required to work outside their selected milieu in order to meet some sort of inclusivity litmus test? You also say: "This focus on photography from the most privileged regions fails to include contributions from other parts of the world". I don't understand this either. Whose focus are you referring to? Is there some "them" or "they" you don't approve of? If I want to write a paper or book or make a video about photography is there a moral or ethical imperative to include artists or subject matter that represent some level of diversity? If so, diversity of what? And if so, just how diverse must it be to pass everyone's inclusivity mandate? Can you see how ideas like these constrain the artistic and expressive freedom of art? Is that ever a good thing? If there are artists that are underrepresented in the 'canon' why do you think that is so? Is it simply a publicity issue? Well, welcome to the real world. Do you believe that every photographer with compelling work rises to fame and critical acclaim, even amongst the ones you say are privileged? Of course not. I don't think there is some sort of cartel ignoring great art just based on who did it or where it came from. Finally you say: "added to that the imposition of aesthetic values and hierarchies generated by certain groups of people on others". With all respect, from one conspiracy theorist to another.........that sounds like a conspiracy theory. No one is imposing anything on anyone. Is there a pop culture among gallery owners, critics and dealers? Of course. Is it often money driven, a popularity contest or cult of personality? Of course, how else would a Jackson Pollock painting ever find room on anyone's wall much less that of a museum. But again, I don't think there is any remote evidence that there is some sort of sinister plot to exclude anyone from photography. But there is also a truth that many folks simply don't want to face. Some cultures generate higher and better art than others. No one in the world did anything comparable to the ancient Greeks in their heyday. Simple as that. And this still applies. Has western culture provided the highest level of art for centuries if not millenia? Yes. Does that mean that other cultures do not? Of course not. Does that mean that western culture will continue to dominate? Hardly. It seems we are fading fast, especially when you consider work like Tillman's. I have a humble suggestion: Look at the individual work not the individual. Art should stand on its own merits. If it stands on marketing, pop culture or even some moral notion of inclusiveness it will eventually fail and fade away like a Taylor Swift song.
I saw Tillmans exhibition at MOMA and it left me uninspired and drained from the cacophony of unrelated images. Like Duchamp, Tillman’s work relies upon the underlying assumption that if an artist says “it is art” then it becomes art. Instead of being evaluated as photographic art perhaps his work should properly be considered conceptual art and his exhibitions should be thought of as installations. Also in comparison with Eggleston, Tillmans is clearly not the equal of Eggleston in terms of visual impact and substance. Tillmans’ work looks like fashion photography whereas Eggleston’s work looks like a photographic artist’s serious engagement with the world.
Two very succinct points - the exhibitions are more in line with conceptual installations. I think that I would accept that explanation far more readily.
Much do about nothing, really. Hyperbolic language used as an excuse for lack of it in the images (as seen here). Rather vague or even vacuous. Not yours; theirs. Unlike some of the so-called elitist performing arts, marketing has greater choice in its darlings in this medium, not the public. Investments. There are tricky philosophical issues in this connection. As always, your commentary is incisive.
He hasn't developed a visual language, from what I've seen, though certain images have a certain something, as certain images will. F. Jameson's book on Postmodernism says that not much PoMo work is memorable- seductive, fun, exciting, yes, but not memorable. You make memorable work by truly honing in on something and exploring it in depth, developing insight and the chance to produce a definitive or major image or series of images of your obsessions and abiding concerns. Then again, if a million monkeys randomly typed on a million typewriters, one day they'd write Hamlet . . . And yes, Eggleston is an authentic giant compared with this guy.
There is a great book, it contains all interviews from the late 80s to now with Tillmanns. For me, as a photographer (only advertising) it was one of the most eye opening books ever. Photography is just one way of seeing the world for him. He wants to raise questions and mostly for himself. It`s not about "mastering" something. And developing one definitive visual language would be the most boring thing for him I guess. Photography is a form of expression for him, like words. Not all words have to be written in beautiful poem to be powerful. Looking through all his work he developed quite a strong visual language for me. Not all pictures are the ones you want on your wall just for beauty, but this is not his intention.
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
Graeme, THANK YOU. This is my favourite of the videos you’ve made. RUclips is populated almost wall-to wall with hagiography. Thank you for your thoughtful and considered reservations about Tillmans. There has to be a place for true criticism. It has become very rare. Well done.
Thanks Lloyd
I want to add my voice to all the comments praising your honesty and critical taste. More!!!
Some years ago I used to listen to the audio of a Tillmans lecture to get to sleep.His voice is so monotone, it was highly effective. It's in real contrast to his photography which is the engaging, rich, free photographic expressiveness of a life lived. Your bemused-crowd watching, disdain for informal hanging and justifiable wariness of 'artspeak' may be getting in your own way a little bit. The 'photographic merit' you crave is absolutely here in my opinion. It's in the subtle observing with a camera, the reacting and the making. It's in the framing, the sensitivity to colour and light, the numerous recurring themes, whether its the flotsam on people's windowsills, sexuality, hanging with celebs, the sky or the curve of a sheet of photographic paper. There's no need to ramp it up to something more than that, which I would agree with you on.
Frank and Shore were treated with disdain and indifference initially. They didn't do what was recognised as 'good photography'. The Americans' was famously battered in early reviews and hardly anyone went to the first New Topographics show in 1975-76. But the same interesting compulsions and drive are at work in Tillmans and like with those other photographers, and Eggleston, it's up to us to form our own judgment if what he comes up with add up to anything or not. He may not be your cup of tea for all sorts of peripheral reasons but if you don't get anything from his pictures there's nothing wrong with that.
Best wishes
Pete
Hi Pete I am happy that you get something out of his work. I don't think that one can argue about the presence or absence of merit - it would be very boring if just my concept of art was allowed to be displayed. Thanks for responding.
Thank you for articulating so well a feeling that I have had for years about this work, made both of appreciation and puzzlement. Until I met Tillmans and talked to him I was just dismissive of the work, could n to believe this could be on the walls of reputable galleries, museums and festivals. My conversation with him was very interesting and challenging (for me) as he is an intelligent, well-meaning. I thoroughly enjoyed it but it did not really help my appreciation of the work itself which now sounds more like soliloquy than anything. As for Eggleston his vision is coherent (without explanation) but many photographs are overrated, also part of a fad mainly started by Szarkowski, that has made many people ignore that he was definitely not the first color photographer with a consistent body of work. He is more accessible than Tillmans (who is somewhat smarter and more articulate) but not such a "G' as many people have said.
I do agree that Eggleston would have benefited from a strict editor. He also has a huge number of images that I really like, while Mr Tillman's has very few.
Really appreciate your genuine critical engagement; it is both thought provoking and makes your channel stand out amongst the loud a noisy YT platform. 👍🏻
Thanks CM
I didn’t know that he made such a career. During the mid 80s and early 90s he was the photographer of THE german underground/post-punk hipster-left music magazine SPEX. His work from these years, documenting german subculture, esp. the evolving techno culture in Berlin was far different.
People like you, who are capable of serious criticism instead of “dissing “ people are rare. We need more of this.❤
I appreciate your intelligent critique of a photographer that changed my view on what photos can be. The democracy within Wolfgang's work is the key, for sure. but it is the aspect of documentation of change that I feel delighted to see. It is that shift he made, from club work to fashion to everything, that is impressive for me. It is a certain curiosity and sensuality he never agreed to lose after growing older and older, and which I see many artists losing after they reach a certain level. It is also the sound of his photos. Probably because of the synesthesia I carry with me, it is easy for me to associate images with sounds, and Tillmans has a gift for picturing silence. Especially, easily seen in his portraiture work.
I really appreciate you being critical of art, most youtubers simply present the artist and follow the narrative that "this person is indeed a celebrated artist". Like if it's in a museum that means it's automatically good art and there's no need to argue because someone made the decision for you.
We need to have standards.
Yes, thanks, it is my first venture into this domain.
Another example of how contemporary art is all about the truth that tells a lie, and post-modernism is the instrument and condition of this reversal. I don't question his sincerity or the sincerity of the artists that have this misunderstanding of the work of Eggleston or Shore, but there isn't an ounce of joy, mystery, love, perplexity or rapture is this sort of work. Much of contemporary photography feels hateful of the medium itself without being explicit about that hate. In any case, another great video, so glad I found your channel!!!
Yes, it is a telling thing when beauty and joy are discarded by a movement.
Very honest and straightforward! I left at 8:27 because you had cut to the chase by then =put your perceptions in order and they made sense. I’m with you 100%. I think most of it’s about marketing. Thank you.
I agree 100% with you. I have visited his exhibition(s) and left with the same uneasy feeling that his work was simplistic, and that his rise as an art icon was manufactured by those who trade in the big money art market. Even though I get the idea of the democratization of the image, as you pointed out, that was already proposed many years ago. Additionally, the fact that his merit has to be justified by "word salads" as you rightly say, makes the whole enterprise dubious at best. Thanks for the video, in my opinion, it was well though and on point about a subject matter that it is becoming more important by the day: are we going to connect with artistic merit, or are we going to accept elaborate verbal explanations as a substitute for meaningful artistic expression?
Hopefully at some point collectors will stop collecting garbage and then the art world will have to return to a meritocracy.
@@PhotoConversationsYeah, I have always thought that if someone has to explain the joke, probably it was not that funny after all. Good day, and thank you for your posts.
@@PhotoConversations I fear that may never happen, as collectors are quite often not collecting for any sort of aesthetic merit; the grand sums are driven up by cold market forces. Perhaps Tillmans' work has risen to such heights because of its very specific lack of meaning. To which any word salad could be attached, and thereby justifying grand sums of money to those lost in the swirl of those explanations.
I have enjoyed your videos so far for the profound research and analysis of the work of various artists. This one is the first (that I know of) where a true and honest search for meaning and value makes you give a thumbs-down. I have often failed myself to see or feel artistic value in post-modernist artistic creations despite long and elaborate supporting text. Though I fully share the opinion on this specific work, I feel that the most commendable thing here is your intellectual honesty in articulating a well justified opinion. Your work makes RUclips s better place. I would love to see more of this. Thank you and well done sir.
Thanks for that! Yes, initially, I thought that I should only talk about work that I value, and I am still trying to figure out how to expand into the area of criticism without being 'opinionated' or just an asshole.
@@PhotoConversations Oh they will call you that and worse. Online hate is the "tax" we have to pay for having freedom of speech. It's painful but overall worth it I think. As for criticism, there is no way better than the one you chose: Defining the principle as best as possible and then comparing to it. Thanks and please keep up.
"Using complexity to desguise vagueness"
What a brilliant video. I liked your analysis of Tillman's work and agree with your comparison of it to Egglestone's. You remain humble in your analysis and open to other opinions. Top !
Hi Alan Much appreciated
What an important video! I can’t think of anyone who would or who could pull of a balanced, thoughtful but sceptical video like this.
This video inspired me to reach out to a (local) photographer who is a fan of Tillman’s. He was helpful. I got to see more of his work. But I think you got it about right here.
It just occurred to me that a powerful counter-example to Tillman’s manner of display are the chapters of Ways of Seeing without text. Or the long purely visual essay in Another Way of Telling.
Thanks Lloyd The feeling from viewers has been fairly unanimous.
Thank you for posting this and your other thoughtful, intelligent critiques of photographers' work. They stand far above the most popular RUclips photo channel mediocrats. (Did I just invent a word?) Have you done Abbas or Riboud?
Much appreciated!
We should do an experiment: smuggle in a couple of random instagram pictures into one of Tillmans exhibitions and see if visitors art critics would notice. If they don't notice, maybe we do not need that particular vision of Wolfgang.
Hi Frank Good idea, it is unlikely they would notice.
I could not agree more with your observations! excellent
I agree with your sentiment.
I did not know about his political views, but I could have guessed them.
I have to agree with you Graeme. Democratisation in terms of accessibility, voice or subject matter is great but some discernment of quality, however subjective, is still necessary for any art form to grow, advance and survive. When one considers some of the of the people who have come before, such as Diane Arbus, I don't see Tillman's work contributing to the canon of the genre. Just my own opinion.
You just happen to have the same opinion as me!
Thank goodness for this review. When I first saw Tillman’s work I was thoroughly unimpressed and that I was artistically naive. Now I see that my first impressions were right. I wonder if Tate and MoMA would have the same enthusiasm for crappy paintings…?
Thanks Ed. That is how the museums get away with this type of thing - they tell you its good and make you feel naive if you think it is crappy. As far as the Tate and Moma go - it depends who makes the crappy paintings.
I wonder who remembers the story of 'The Emperors New Clothes'? Perhaps there's a comparison here..?
Hi I think that the Emperor in this case is Post Modernism, rather than Tillmans himself.
I have no idea what I could draw from his pictures, individually or as a collection. Maybe it's anti-art?
Having said that, if anyone wants to pay insane amounts for the random pictures I took as an 8 year old in 70s Berlin- get in touch!
I'll pass your request on - I'm not sure if you have the marketing machine behind you.
I agree with the idea of excellence but I must highlight my surprise when Ive bought his book by tashen during the '90 at the time I was studying on big format traditional camera and his style totally disrupted any previous concept of photography and abruptly brought me back to my era.
Thanks for this video! I have been told that you have to be really smart to understand Tillamans’ work!! - I am not that clever!
I think that proves your high IQ
I agree with your view on Eggleston it's relatable . Tillmans don't get it.
I found this critique very helpful. If his work is all about inclusivity and all photographs are equal, then how does he select for exhibition? What is his criterion for displaying work? What photos does he save and what does he delete? Furthermore why is his work on gallery walls and not mine!!!! Outside of the gallery space how would I feel if someone presented one of his photographs to me without his name attached? I suspect I wouldn't feel very engaged or moved, just baffled.
Hi Paul Yes, why isn't anyone clamouring to show that picture you took this morning while sitting drinking coffee. Seems unfair to me!
Great insights Graeme. I play a mind game with myself when considering any art purchase. If I visualize an “artist (photographer) unknown” caption below the piece, would I still want it hanging in my home? Of course, purchasing as an investment and not enjoyment is a whole different ballgame, and one I care not to play.
Hi That sounds like a good approach - it's possible that art sales would drop significantly if more collectors followed this path.
Here is an amateurs's view: when i first saw his photos i thought they were a bit ugly and not pleasing to the eye. The photos of William Eggleston and Stephen Shore and especially Lewis Baltz and Robert Adams had the opposite effect.
Agreed!
So much to unpack here. For starters, any visual art that relies on explanations for its impact fails, in my eyes. A big difference between Tillmans and Eggleston is that Eggleston did it first. He made us first consider the beauty of the banal. Tillmans is retreading old ground. His work is often banal for banal's sake, revealing nothing. Some of his work is beautiful and powerful some is not; he dilutes the better work with the lesser stuff in the name of some fantasy democracy.
Yes but Eggleston is very far from doing it first! And, by the way, this clear-sighted and well-articulated sentence also applies to Eggleston, don't you think/ "Some of his work is beautiful and powerful some is not; he dilutes the better work with the lesser stuff in the name of some fantasy democracy."
@@BrunoChalifour By first I just meant before Tillmans. Thanks for the compliment on the sentence. I too find some of Eggleston's work less engaging, but am more forgiving as, first or not, he was breaking new ground and didn't expect you to accept all of the work in the name of some pomo theory of democracy. Tillmans' arty bollocks just seems an easy way to escape criticism of shoddy work.
@@hoagyguitarmichaelArty bollocks - what a great line!
No argument here from me!
Much of the contemporary art flowing today fails to bring art under the yoke of articulate, almost academic, thought. In a work of art the artist's own thought is dispensable. In that sense, the democratization of sensations, with artists like Tillmans, comes to try to save the spectator from the hell of "truth" and take him towards unsafe terrain, where the sensations caused by inconnectivity prevail and the spectator can relates to the world from a purely sensual angle.
Thanks for commenting Luis. I get what you're saying and I know that this was his aim for the work. However, I cannot feel this transition from 'the hell of truth' into to some form of sensual freedom. As the Dude says in the Big Lebowski, 'Yeah, well that's just your opinion, man." Which is as valid as mine.
It is really very difficult to form an evaluative judgment of these "photographic works" just by watching a video about this "artist". In order to do so, I would have to follow his exhibitions, consult his books, his catalogues, etc. and only then could I give an opinion about his work. The strong idea that appears in my mind is the following, these, like many others, are artistic-social phenomena that can manifest only in highly developed countries, in urban-cultural centers that own all and all academic institutions, museums and galleries. very renowned, recognized and accepted as legitimizing what is art and what they consider is not. They are the powerful owners of the Art Market and it will be this, without any other argument that is not economic, that will determine what is valid or what is the truth. It's hard but that's how it is. The inhabitants of the South of the planet...who live "below" the world with real power, see all this problem flying thousands of meters above our heads. And, although such phenomena also occur in these corners of the world, they are always a faint shadow of those in the USA and Europe. To be brief, I totally agree with you and I thank you very much for your videos because you are one of the few that I have met in these media who speaks sensibly, with real knowledge and humility.
Very well spoken - thank you for your comment, I am learning so much.
Thanks for your kind words.
The point of much contemporary art is that nothing is ever objective. As you mention, Tillman's statement "if one thing matters, everything matters" is essentially nihilistic and in the end, self refuting much like the statement that "all sentences are false". In that regard such art is essentially childishness that is popularized by pseudo-intellectual patrons who themselves delight in the destruction of meaning and truth without understanding the consequences. In that regard work like Tillman's is not really art at all.
Hi George Thanks. I think that you articulated the rot that is at the core of this philosophy and 'art'.
I don’t disagree with your assessment. The art critics du jour going gaga over his work in fact somewhat diminishes what I think he’s trying to do, in an emperor-with-no-clothes way. I’d classify him as an explorer artist, providing a jolt to the system that is always needed for progress, though I don’t have a strong opinion of this particular jolt’s potential for success. The main difference between Tillmans and Egglestone, to me, is Egglestone’s work is always relatable. I’m yet to find any of Tillmans’ photos that makes me feel that.
That's a good point - calling him and explorer artist.
👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏
It is uncomfortable to view because it is an almost perfect reflection of so much of the modern world. Banality abounds in the 2020s. His work is utterly banal and, therefore, perfectly observed. This then leaves you with banal work to try and enjoy. If you can, then i applaud you. I dont much like his individual works (a lot of it reminds me of what happens if i give my 7 year old a camera for the day) but i appreciate it at the level I outlined above.
At least the 7-year old wouldn't right pages of unreadable text explaining the depth and complexity of what he/she has done.
You havent met my daughter 😅😅😅 @PhotoConversations
I've never seen any of his work and he and I come from a different perspective. By the looks of it I'd like some of it and others bits would wash over me, but hey ho that would probably happen with anybody's work; it certainly does with Ansel Adams and Cartier Bresson. Having said that I'm with any artist/photographer doing their own thing, no problem with them pursuing their own agenda (whether I agree with it or not) and I'm reasonably cool with him raking in the money. The problem comes when people are paid unreasonable amounts to interpret the work and come up with BS explanations and meanings. If gullible people are willing to pay millions for a photo as an investment they aught to take a good hard look at themselves; plenty of hospitals and foodbanks could do with the odd $10,000.
I guess the point is - is he genuine in his viewpoint or is he intentionally taking people for a ride; you could ask the same of Eggleston, Martin Parr, Da Vinci or J.S. Lowry, etc, etc ... whether I subjectively like it is irrelevant !
Hi Iain I think that Tillmans is a genuine guy and good for him that he has earned some money along the way.
I am always open to being shown to be wrong, but Tilman's work feels stuck in the 80s.I listened to so much justification for Conceptual Art back then that I developed an aversion to it. It always struck me that, devoid as it is, of emotion, all that is left is intellectual musings, and verbiage. There is a place for emotion-free intellectualism, but I don't think it is in an Art Gallery.
Perhaps in a university where you might expect that kind of thing!
This photogapher is massively overrated - trite, boring images. Thanks as always for your commentary.
I can only comment based on what I feel and see. Have never been to a Tillman’s exhibition, and only seen one of his books, so maybe I don’t have the knowledge to say much, but based on the shots of his exhibition on your video, my general impression is one of confusion. The comments by the female curator (?) struck me as meaningless, designed to increase the hype surrounding his work and the prestige of the gallery showing it. I am always suspicious if it takes that many words to say what something is about. So I am not a fan. Great video though.
Thanks Joy I agree.
Thank you for finding some critical words about Tillmans. In my opinion he is completely overrated, a product of time that will vanish when times are changing...
A footnote that somehow became mainstream.
If you swapped out a third of his images at a showing with those of a nine year old's, could anyone tell? I'm going to ask Midjourney to produce a Tillmans-like body of work,.. just to confuse the algorithm.
Funny!
its a boring lasting trend - made for trendy crowd. his work is not about photography at all. its just visualy engaging the trend.
I want to add to this discussion that even when we talk about the aesthetic value and significance of the work of such photographers like Shore, Eggleston, Cartier-Bresson, Meyerowitz, Adams, Evans, etc. they all represent a mostly White, male, Eurocentric/ Western worldview. This focus on photography from the most privileged regions fails to include contributions from other parts of the world and the vision and styles from photographers from minoritized groups. It excludes entire continents giving the false idea that only "good", "creative," "thought-provoking, "meaningful" art emerges almost exclusively from the USA and European nations. In my case, coming from the Caribbean with a strong Latin American heritage I find myself critically analyzing the body of work of these "canonical" photographers. On many occasions it is difficult to relate or understand what's behind their work. Art does have such a subjective aspect, but added to that the imposition of aesthetic values and hierarchies generated by certain groups of people on others makes me think there's still a lot of work to do.
Please point me in the direction of meaningful work that you feel has been neglected.
I was trying to add here some links to websites but I guess RUclips gives me a hard time, maybe thinking it is spam. anyways, you can check the African Photography Network, Visura magazine, Fotografas Latam (women in photography from Latin America) and other photographers like Pedro Meyer, Graciela Iturbide, Sebastiao Salgado, Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Erika P. Rodriguez and Manuel Rivera-Ortiz (Puerto Rico) and Marlon James (Jamaica).
@@PhotoConversations BTW, I found your observations about Tillman very interesting.
Hi Lorenzo Thanks for that list. I have done a video on Sebastiao and the two Manuels are on my list. I didn't know Pedro Meyer, but I like his work. The others, I will have to spend some time with. Feel free to send more if they come to mind.
I'm trying to understand the first sentence in your post. Eggleston et al are white western males. How does that impact how we "talk about the aesthetic and significance" of their own work. Are they required to be other than what they are? Are they required to work outside their selected milieu in order to meet some sort of inclusivity litmus test?
You also say: "This focus on photography from the most privileged regions fails to include contributions from other parts of the world". I don't understand this either. Whose focus are you referring to? Is there some "them" or "they" you don't approve of? If I want to write a paper or book or make a video about photography is there a moral or ethical imperative to include artists or subject matter that represent some level of diversity? If so, diversity of what? And if so, just how diverse must it be to pass everyone's inclusivity mandate? Can you see how ideas like these constrain the artistic and expressive freedom of art? Is that ever a good thing?
If there are artists that are underrepresented in the 'canon' why do you think that is so? Is it simply a publicity issue? Well, welcome to the real world. Do you believe that every photographer with compelling work rises to fame and critical acclaim, even amongst the ones you say are privileged? Of course not. I don't think there is some sort of cartel ignoring great art just based on who did it or where it came from.
Finally you say: "added to that the imposition of aesthetic values and hierarchies generated by certain groups of people on others". With all respect, from one conspiracy theorist to another.........that sounds like a conspiracy theory. No one is imposing anything on anyone. Is there a pop culture among gallery owners, critics and dealers? Of course. Is it often money driven, a popularity contest or cult of personality? Of course, how else would a Jackson Pollock painting ever find room on anyone's wall much less that of a museum. But again, I don't think there is any remote evidence that there is some sort of sinister plot to exclude anyone from photography.
But there is also a truth that many folks simply don't want to face. Some cultures generate higher and better art than others. No one in the world did anything comparable to the ancient Greeks in their heyday. Simple as that. And this still applies. Has western culture provided the highest level of art for centuries if not millenia? Yes. Does that mean that other cultures do not? Of course not. Does that mean that western culture will continue to dominate? Hardly. It seems we are fading fast, especially when you consider work like Tillman's.
I have a humble suggestion: Look at the individual work not the individual. Art should stand on its own merits. If it stands on marketing, pop culture or even some moral notion of inclusiveness it will eventually fail and fade away like a Taylor Swift song.
I saw Tillmans exhibition at MOMA and it left me uninspired and drained from the cacophony of unrelated images. Like Duchamp, Tillman’s work relies upon the underlying assumption that if an artist says “it is art” then it becomes art. Instead of being evaluated as photographic art perhaps his work should properly be considered conceptual art and his exhibitions should be thought of as installations. Also in comparison with Eggleston, Tillmans is clearly not the equal of Eggleston in terms of visual impact and substance. Tillmans’ work looks like fashion photography whereas Eggleston’s work looks like a photographic artist’s serious engagement with the world.
Two very succinct points - the exhibitions are more in line with conceptual installations. I think that I would accept that explanation far more readily.
Much do about nothing, really. Hyperbolic language used as an excuse for lack of it in the images (as seen here). Rather vague or even vacuous. Not yours; theirs. Unlike some of the so-called elitist performing arts, marketing has greater choice in its darlings in this medium, not the public. Investments. There are tricky philosophical issues in this connection. As always, your commentary is incisive.
Thanks Michael
Maybe you need drugs? heavy drugs!! Viewing this is like listening to The Dead sober or the Live version on Miles Davis's Bitches Brew..
He hasn't developed a visual language, from what I've seen, though certain images have a certain something, as certain images will. F. Jameson's book on Postmodernism says that not much PoMo work is memorable- seductive, fun, exciting, yes, but not memorable. You make memorable work by truly honing in on something and exploring it in depth, developing insight and the chance to produce a definitive or major image or series of images of your obsessions and abiding concerns. Then again, if a million monkeys randomly typed on a million typewriters, one day they'd write Hamlet . . .
And yes, Eggleston is an authentic giant compared with this guy.
Oh I didn't know that...but good thinking
There is a great book, it contains all interviews from the late 80s to now with Tillmanns. For me, as a photographer (only advertising) it was one of the most eye opening books ever. Photography is just one way of seeing the world for him. He wants to raise questions and mostly for himself. It`s not about "mastering" something. And developing one definitive visual language would be the most boring thing for him I guess. Photography is a form of expression for him, like words. Not all words have to be written in beautiful poem to be powerful. Looking through all his work he developed quite a strong visual language for me. Not all pictures are the ones you want on your wall just for beauty, but this is not his intention.
All criticism is gatekeeping.
totally distrust tillmans. As to me , I see he has no vision. and he thinks that cool I imagine -emperors new clothes comes to mind.