Videos are hard for me, because I don't like having my attention monopolized for as long as 23 minutes, 21 seconds. But now might be a great time to watch Ben Lewis's "Gursky World," from 2002. A reader named Mathijs pointed it out to me—I'd never seen it before. It's utterly charming, and quite beguiling too. The 23:21 went by quickly, perhaps even too quickly.
Ben Lewis - Gursky World from TofuTasties on Vimeo.
Ben's comment, "He seemed like a nice chap, and he drove a fast car" made me laugh. As Mathijs says, "It's a very enjoyable watch. Furthermore, they actually visit the location this exact photo [i.e., "Rhein II," the photo that set the record price on Tuesday] was taken!"
Andreas Gursky shows Ben Lewis the spot where "Rhein II" was
taken. From the film "Gursky World."
The video quality is poor, but don't let that dissuade you.
And I have to say I like Gursky more now than before. He does seem like a nice chap.
Mike
(Thanks to Mathijs)
Send this post to a friend
The links, Rick, the links! B&H Photo and Amazon
Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2011 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.
Featured Comment by Werner J. Karl: "There's an interesting documentary about Andreas Gursky called 'Long Shot Close Up' by Jan Schmidt-Garre (German with English subtitles). I recommend it. You'll see and probably appreciate more how much work goes into a picture by Gursky. The price tag of course has other reasons, as Mike has already pointed out.
In the first few minutes Hilla Becher visits Andreas Gursky in his studio and they discuss this very picture. It definitely looks impressive in large format, hanging on a wall. Apparently, image editing software (Quantel) was used, very economically. Here is a loose translation of their conversation:
HB: I liked this picture very much. But Bernd [Becher] didn't like it, we really argued. It was way too abstract for him, to the point that it would no longer 'work.' He always used this expression. I think it is of course very abstract. One can clearly sense that a few things are missing, things that were there in reality. But I quite like this over-abstraction, where the Rhine runs through the landscape like a slime or a pudding. It shows something that really is the Rhine.
AG: You said that you can sense that something has been changed. Can you be more specific?
HB: I would imagine that here on this (top left) side, something is missing. Obviously you've put something right there? It's so suspiciously smooth, as if drawn with a ruler, and I am not quite buying into that.
AG: Fact is, that in this image the cleanup took place really economical. At this point (top left) it was pretty much as it is, but here (top right) was actually a power station.
HB: And that's all?
AG: No. Not all.
HB: And here at the bottom?
AG: The foreground, the road, the entrance to the water, these are all completely untouched.
HB: That's crazy!
AG: Yes. That's not to say that I just drove there and took a snapshot. It's my jogging route, so I know this location very well. Once I had decided to take this photo and looked at first contact sheets, I couldn't recognize my initial impression. I had to work hard to restore this initial impression. In the beginning we always had easterly winds, and the water was very calm. But I was looking for a rough surface. This required a very specific, opposing wind direction.
HB: Well. That's exactly what makes photography so beautiful. That one really 'creeps' into something, intensively engages with a subject. That one not always hopes for something to happen by chance on the way.
Featured Comment by Ben Syverson: "If anyone out there is not familiar with the 'Düsseldorf school' of photography, I highly recommend this beautifully printed book. Those few artists are the reason why there was a craze for monumental color photographs in the '90s and early 2000s, and their work is still incredibly influential.
"I'll just add that there is a small but shrinking difference between snark and ignorance."
Mike adds: Jörg M. Colberg of Conscientious picked this as the best photography book of 2010, if memory serves.
Featured Comment by Jeffrey Goggin: "I quite like Gursky's work, although I was dismayed to learn that it was less a reflection of reality than of someone's (not his?) post-processing skills. I also second Ben Syverson's recommendation of Stefan Gronert's book. I've had a copy of it for nearly a year now and have never managed to shelve it, because I find myself regularly browsing through it."
Featured Comment by ben ng: "Wonderful video, I enjoyed it very much. Having printed my pictures up to a maximum of 3x6 feet, I must say that the large format subject matter is not that easy to choose. Some pictures simply don't work; and then the choice of tonality, contrast, can also be different the larger you go. Not to mention the terrifying flaws that appear in the picture, that were not visible in a 13x19-inch print (others may not notice, but you do). I like Gursky's choices. If people want to pay such prices, more power to him."
Featured Comment by Caleb Courteau: "I'm glad I watched this video. When I saw the photo of the 'Rhein II' my immediate reaction was confusion. Why did the photographer think this scene was important? I did a Google search of some of his other work and started to get a feel for his style. Yes, the banality of modern life comes through his photos very strongly as the video points out. I'm glad Ben Lewis kept a sense of humor about the art world, but was very reverent toward the artist himself, and allowed us to listen to Mr. Gursky tell us in his own words what he thinks his photos mean."
Featured Comment by Hans Muus: "Enjoyed the video—also made me understand Gursky better. His claim of objectivity is food for thought, though. When one manipulates the contents of a photo to achieve, let's call it for want of a better word 'visual purity,' does that 'purity' also mean more 'objectivity'? We seem to define objectivity in an emotional way—as being detached, and somewhat cold. But when manipulation is needed to arrive at such 'objectivity'—shouldn't it be called subjectivity instead? After all, the manipulating photographer is forcing his/her vision upon reality more strongly. True objectivity would take great pains just to mitigate that influence as much as possible. (This is really just my little exercise in thinking about objectivity and subjectivity. Either way beautiful photographs can be made, if you ask me.)"
That was well worth the time to watch. It was very, very interesting and clarifying. German photography has been on this path for some time and although I have a book or two of German work in my library, I am just beginning to appreciate it.
What I love about your blog is the variety of subjects linked to photography and the depth. Your writings, combined with others, of course, have been influential in how I see the world. I have found myself taking more risks in what I photograph, although I have not yet shown much of that work to my friends. But that is only because I am thinking more about my work before I present a collection – which has made all the difference.
Posted by: Barb Smith | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 11:28 AM
For those who are seeing Ben Lewis for the first time I'd just like to add that he made a splendid series called "Art Safari", which can be found in the normal places on-line.
Posted by: Jeff Warden | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 11:40 AM
Yesterday I said I didn't "get" the photograph. Today, after watching the video, I understand it better. I still think Gursky has better images, but then I can't afford $4 million anyway....
Posted by: Alan | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 12:03 PM
I saw the Ben Lewis' documentary on Dutch TV years ago. I had never heard of Gursky before then. His images are quite overwhelming to me. Thanks for putting this story up, thanks Mathijs!
Posted by: Chris Breebaart | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 12:03 PM
Any readers from London can go see 3 Gursky pictures that are on display until 27 November at the new White Cube in Bermondsey. The gallery is worth the visit for the space alone. There are two fairly recent ones, and this one, from 1993:
http://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2001/gursky/montparnasse_pop.html
The '93 one is pretty nasty close up, and we were rather taken aback by that. To me (and the two people I was with) it seemed bady oversharpened and had really foul noise in shadows - generally just not nice. Had to get quite a long way away from it. I had always liked this one a lot from seeing it in books.
You can get a NEW Gursky for around the $750,000 mark I think. If you don't like those, there are three or four Jeff Walls in the show as well, which are similarly priced. White Cube is having a Jeff Wall solo show of new work at the Mason's Yard gallery, which opens in a week or two. I would say Wall could run AG pretty close for the #1 label at the moment.
Posted by: Robert P | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 01:06 PM
'Everywhere You Look, There's Always a Gursky'
Exactly. I already thought about this, reading the original post. Some people are upset about the price payed for this object. And fair enough, it ir absolutley out of sync with anything. And then they try to dismiss the object and construct a relation between crazy economics and the artists work.
But at this point one is mixing apples and oranges, because what we really hate (or should hate) is the accumulation and of wealth and its insane spending towards status symbols, not the symbols themselves.
If someone would pay me 4 million whatever for one of my prints I would take it, but still remain in inner (and then outer) opposition to the economic system that makes this possible.
Posted by: Andreas | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 01:38 PM
Andreas,
Bingo.
(That's American slang for "you've got it" or "you're exactly right.")
Mike
Posted by: Mike Johnston | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 02:16 PM
Ben Lewis rocks big time. His approach to art is just as I like it, understanding the art and demistifying the hype.
En eh, Mathijs, dank je wel, the ARTE docu I knew allready but this one I must have missed. The spot were Gursky took Rhine I knew as well (I go to Dusseldorf a lot these days since they have great photoshows there and I park my car in the Gursky so to speak).
And eh, Robert, last august I saw a copy of Montparnasse as well, and I must say I did not object that much. Remembering it was made with technology from 1993 not by nowaday technology. I guess he used Velvia back then and Velvia is a BITCH (capital period) to scan on any scanner I prefer Kodachrome (oops, I said it). That might explain some of the noise. I have mastered the art now (as in yes today) and it includes making three scans at different exposures and running an exposure blend in PShop (or in my case Gimp). What did disturb me however was the ever so slight cushioning in the left and right part of the image. It was made with two negatives that were fused together (as Rhine II is as well, if you look you can still see the join ever so faintly) and that means you can see two cushions. Now knowing how computer power and algorithms developed Andreas can't be blamed. He expanded the limits of technology and art and that why I like his pictures to bits.
BTW, the best Gursky book I know accompanied his show in Krefeld. Gursky 80-08......a must buy.
And eh, mark.....did the euro fall while I was wathing Gursky?
Greetings, Ed
Posted by: Ed | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 02:32 PM
Thank you Mike! This series on Gursky and the Dusseldorf school is some of your best work. It illustrates the power of blogging at its best. Nothing like a good writer and a great collection of passionate followers to really thrash a subject and make us all instant experts on it.
Do you think the photo of the Rhein would have sold if it had been offered in one of your print sales without identifying the photographer?
Posted by: Huw Morgan | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 03:16 PM
Thanks for the video link. Not only a glimpse at Gursky but my belovèd Bechers got a run as well.
Posted by: Walter Glover | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 03:43 PM
Not at all impressed by Gursky from what I have seen here. Whether that will change if/when I see his prints in person, I do not know.
Posted by: Rajan Parrikar | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 04:20 PM
Really great video. As a current student of photography, we are taught a whole lot about the so called 'deadpan aesthetic' that really began at the Dusseldorf Academy, and Gursky is the perfect example of that way of seeing. However, as someone who grew up in the 1990's, it is impossible for me to not comment on the wonderful cover of the song 'Barbie Girl' turned into 'Gursky Girl' that plays throughout the film. That was the true deal sealer for me.
Posted by: Tyler Haughey | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 05:16 PM
Everywhere I Look, There's Always a Friedlander .
Posted by: hugh crawford | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 06:47 PM
Money aside, because as a rank amateur it's outside my sphere of influence for what's a good piece of art, i have both less and more respect for Gursky after watching this video.
More: He is a "nice chap" humble, pursuing his artistry and without too much pretence (which i get from the film). I like that as an artist. Because of that i'll like him more, and i will pay more attention to his work. But not pay that much for a piece as I can't afford a print offer on TOP, let alone a Gursky ;-)
Less: The term "objective". Yes, you can argue that all photos have a slant, as we frame/compose/press the shutter. That, however, is a given and an inevitability with photography so therefore it should be taken out of the equation alltogether.
If you are going to claim "objectivity" the minimum anyone would expect is that your photos are a "real" scene... you don't p*ss about in PS or the darkroom to create that scene. Excusing minor image corrections for exposure/colour balance, what you see is what you get. That is objectivity, removing industrial backgrounds is not.
If Gursky or the curators said it was a pastiche, homage, or comment on society I'd run with it all the way, that would be fine, but because of the claim of objectivity they are not that at all.
What is interesting is that overall my resonse to the video, despite a massive objection to the process/outcome, is that i like Gursky more than i did before watching it. We all respond better for seeig people in action, even better when they are "nice chaps", despite their flaws.
I struggle to understand why he is the darling of the artworld as much as he is. Is it the fakery Does it tap into some of the hyper-reality mentality that is prevalent in the arts?
Posted by: Mark | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 07:30 PM
I saw an exhibition of Andreas Gursky's in the Hyde Park Gallery in London in the late 1990s, as I recall. I just happened to wander in from the park, had never heard of him before. Not weak stuff, and not just because of the monumental size of the pictures, though that scale is part of his art itself.
As it turned out, it was his first exhibition in the UK, long before he was getting these record prices.
Posted by: Mani Sitaraman | Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 08:39 PM
I'm still having a strange feeling about it. I had never heard of Gursky. When I look at his photographs I see things that I have seen, noticed, and photographed myself before. And of course many others too, say Ben Lewis above or the photographs of Sao Paulo by Salgado for instance.
The thing is I have seen and photographed many other things too that don't look like Gurskys. Maybe being an artist is not about originality of vision but about sticking to a specific vision and then pursuing it relentlessly with all possible means, in his case, photomanipulation and large printing to enhance the underlying ideas. More power to him but it makes me feel a bit empty inside.
Posted by: mbka | Friday, 11 November 2011 at 01:37 AM
So looking at the Toyota - Toys 'R' Us image I couldn't help think "well that looks familiar". Sure enough it's where I used to walk at lunch time when working for Toyota F1 in Marsdorf (Cologne, Germany). It's a view from the the hard shoulder of the A4 motorway.
Whilst this was indeed a fascinating "hey I was there" moment the other fascinating thing is that when the picture was taken the central barrier shown was in fact of the metal "arnco" kind. It has since (we think 2005/2006) been replaced by the concrete style shown in the Gursky image. Life copying art? Spooky!
The power lines are shopped in.
Do a google street view from this link;
http://maps.google.de/maps?q=frechen&hl=de&ll=50.919661,6.862625&spn=0.004362,0.007693&sll=51.151786,10.415039&sspn=17.811158,31.508789&vpsrc=6&hnear=Frechen,+Rhein-Erft-Kreis,+Nordrhein-Westfalen&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=50.91988,6.862137&panoid=_0gzu8LQuCDEer48Z12lbA&cbp=12,197.64,,0,22.5
and look SW.
Kind regards,
Duncan
Posted by: Duncan Bell | Friday, 11 November 2011 at 09:11 AM
(mod - add to original if possible)
PS - Ooooh can we do a "google street view recreation of famous photo's" contest? And do I win?
Posted by: Duncan Bell | Friday, 11 November 2011 at 09:14 AM
I have an emotional reaction to photographs that interest me. After viewing a couple of Bernd/Becher gas tank images I want to go get a Starbucks. To me, banality isn't special. If it is, it isn't banality.
I've made more than a few accidental Gurskys. They usually go in the trash. That isn't to say that I don't find any of his works interesting. There's just no connection, for me.
If you like this work, great. I can't seem to get it.
I'm reminded of a much-celebrated exhibit at ICP I saw back in 2006. After spending a couple hours viewing the works, I questioned whether I could even call myself a photographer, since I was so disconnected from most of what was hanging on those walls.
As I write this, I understand that this may be more about my own limitations.
I'm such a Philistine.
Please excuse me. I've got to go photograph a couple of grizzled old World War II veterans.
Posted by: Bill Bresler | Friday, 11 November 2011 at 09:21 AM
I have this on an old video recording when shown in the UK. The great thing is his effort to create a Gursky and then asking the great man himself what he thinks of them....he's very polite!
Posted by: Andy Crouch | Friday, 11 November 2011 at 11:33 AM
Your finding humor in the video is proper, Mike. Ben Lewis says on his website http://www.benlewis.tv/films/gursky-world/gursky-world-the-birth-of-art-safari/ that "Gursky World" was his "first art comedy doco."
I like Lewis's decision that in attempting to come to where Gursky is, he should start with the same camera Gursky uses. But then of course, "Everywhere you look, there's a Gursky."
Posted by: Howard Cornelsen | Sunday, 20 November 2011 at 04:01 PM