Photo 11 At Artisphere’s Terrace Gallery to Sept. 11 A show about nothing...and everything.

Jordan Swartz, “Los Angeles,” from the series “destination: anywhere.”

“Photo 11” keeps things simple. Anannual regional show, it doesn’t couch itself in some pretentious title (Intimate Landscape! Hunters and Gatherers!). It’s just photography. Good photography, too, even though its 18 artists’ subjects are typical of contemporary photography shows: high-chroma building facades, landscapes of urban infrastructure, remains of dying towns, full-body portraiture, close-ups of clouds, foreign locales, shots of homesy Americana. At least there are no sunsets or flora that look like genitals.

So what’s the big deal? With its wide scope and themeless presentation, the show has the unintended consequence of saying something about its medium, and it bears that weight decently.

Photography, once described as democratic—anyone could buy a camera—is now more or less authoritarian: When we purchase a phone, the camera is forced upon us. We can make art, real art, with an iPhone. We can easily glimpse a stranger’s diet on Flickr or see his voyeuristic fetish for urban decay on Instagram. But “Photo 11” is a reminder that attention to the craft and skillful execution are what separate making a photograph from taking a picture.

By frequently finding beauty within the mundane—and by containing a hint of nostalgia—the works in “Photo 11” make you think about what they are not: Flickr sets, which at their worst document commonplace things as though they were Post-tt notes declaring, “I was here.”

Sofia Silva, Caitlin Teal Price, and D.B. Stovall all photograph vacant spaces, but the works don’t feel as if they were captured while simply passing through. For Silva, who photographs at night, time is an occupational hazard. The rich blacks and variety in tone suggest she took time to get to know that drive-through window. In Stovall’s photographs of small businesses, time was essential to get retina-burning colors (though some of that time might have been spent in Photoshop). But he doesn’t simply punch up one area: Even the dark gray of the asphalt beneath a “Kane Is Able” semi-trailer is profoundly colorful. The same goes for Price’s work. Its composition, where its shadows fall, and its colors—another rich variety of gray—make her overpass remarkable.

The show also affirms a technological truth: The silver gelatin print is dead. Forty-three of the 47 images in the show are digital prints, undoubtedly the result of plummeting prices of megapixels and inkjet printing in the last decade. So it shouldn’t be surprising to see as few silver gelatin prints (two) as ambrotypes, a far more archaic method.

In 20 years, will audiences find something as enigmatic in the process of developing silver gelatin as they might with the soft focus and hard shadows of Daniel Afzal’s ambrotype portrait of “Andrea”? Maybe. But Jordan Swartz’s digital prints, from the series “destination: anywhere,” are also a bit blurry, and he got a prize. Regardless of the technology, it seems photographers are still content to mine the nostalgic from the beautiful, pixels be damned.

Our Readers Say

Mr Swart'z photo shown here is lovely. I'd suggest the blurriness is purposeful, wouldn't anyone, based on the title of the series, "Destination Anywhere." (Which I will now be singing in my head all day!)

I'd love to see more of his work.

Mr. Anderson seems to need a snarkometer. In my view, he's confusing a guy holding a Brownie with an actual photographer, given his allusions and illusions regarding i-phone photos.
Thanks for the review, Mr Anderson! Always good to get your perspective.

Actually, we provided info on our processes to the gallery, but none of it made it to the catalog or labels. In my case the originals are large format color transparencies (positives) made with a view camera. The film I use, E100VS, has very high saturation. The originals are scanned and manipulation in Photoshop is minimal, only to the extent of making the prints match to the originals. The color vibrancy is mainly due to the characteristics of the film itself and where I place the exposure on the response curve.

I do agree with the statement on the unfortunate demise of the silver gelatin print. For B&W images they can't be beat. But for my work I really have no other choice than using inkjet with the pigment inks. C prints don't have the gamut and just cannot do the original transparencies justice, even with direct digital printing. And going to internegative is a real loser. Plus C prints are nowhere near archival - they will fade pretty quickly even when stored in total darkness.

D. B. Stovall
>...attention to the craft and skillful execution are what separate making a photograph from taking a picture."
//
"... lovely" ???

Well, to this viewer's eye, the trio of Juror's Award photos from Mr. Swartz beg the question Why...?
They look like incredibly botched pictures, mostly blank nothingness, and with little of interest otherwise. (Okay, the one of the trees can be seen to have some "mood".) --as though some child goofing around in the car lamely misfired a lousy camera generally towards the bridge supports, and missed by 90%, into overexposed waste : THAT is "skillful" ?!
Normal folk wouldn't waste the cost of developing such photos, let alone ... going into a show!
Wow, some "art"!

???
The review at this site :
www.artisphere.com/calendar/event-details/Visual-Arts/Photo-2011.aspx

shows a larger image of the San Fran bridge photograph. There are more elements (lights) in this view. The framing in the show did not reveal these. It is still largely emptiness.

-jSi

Leave a Comment

Note: HTML tags are not allowed in comments.
Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.