This is not a house:
When first entering the room we were handed leaflets on the exhibition which explained in the words of Edgar Martins himself, how he had 'produced a series of photographs that explored the collapse of the US housing market' in 2008 as part of an assignment for The New York Times. Below are photographs I have taken from the exhibition which include photography of 'abandoned homes, golf courses, ski resorts, hotels and other building projects in sixteen locations across six different states.'
It was interesting talking about the exhibition after walking around for a while. My first impression after having read the description was what I had been told. These images were depictions of a lonely, abandoned setting. Places that could have once been lived in or been created with the intention to be habited are left lifeless. After speaking with the rest of the class and my tutor we quizzed on what our first impression would have been without knowing the context of the exhibition, the main point being 'would we have known it was about the housing market or would we have thought differently'? A common idea was that it might have had something to do with a natural disaster; the debris left outside some of the houses look like it was brought there during destruction. Amongst trying to decode what the photos could be about you can't help but notice how strange they seem, is it coincidence or have they been altered before and after being taken to emphasise the image?
My tutor pointed out some of the things that seemed strange within the pictures that once noticed couldn't be ignored. For example the insulation in the photo above is pinker than normal, is it meant to be more satisfying to the eye and visually appealing? This would be an example of a photo that has been adapted to after it was taken.
Another point my tutor made was how some of the pictures seemed too perfectly placed, like this sign in the picture above, like someone had been there and moved it to make the photo look better. Even though the image is about the absence of people it has the vibe that someone was once there.
Three photos that stood out from the others in the show were these below; unlike the other photos of houses they showed what looked like a bare concrete construction site. These pictures stuck out from the rest as they were so different but they were easy to walk past with their dull colour and lack of detail, but with a close look they seemed even more odd. Each was meant to be found but like the above they seem too unlikely to have happened or have been discovered in that state. Some of the locations might have been genuinely found but because of the occasional one that looks too much like an edit you can't help but question all of them. This takes away from the belief of the exhibition, which could be unfortunate or might be the point he is trying to raise. The power that photo journalists have in the media when on a small scale in a trusted newspaper means that you might not question the truth behind a photograph, but then they might just be bending the truth to make more of a point.
When you're actually told the intentional meaning behind the photographs you can't help but notice the strangely appropriate placement of the gallery. There are windows around the gallery space which are always open to the outside world during each exhibition, but for this show the view contrasts with the what's inside. We are being shown housing that has been left as empty shells by its owners and outside there are numerous amounts of new apartment blocks and housing advertised to be moved into, waiting to be homes.
The placement of these windows invites people to look outside and question its relation to the exhibition itself. Even their positioning on the wall makes it look like they have been hung like another piece of art. This makes is a good example of how the venue art work is placed in can affect the meaning, something to consider when hanging my own work and when viewing other work.
As a whole I liked this particular exhibition initially because I felt it was visually appealing which is interesting considering what we questioned later on. I thought the use of houses was appropriate to my theme as it looks at houses and homes that have been a part of some ones life and the context is about the decline of the housing market which is a major topic during my life time. I have previously used Photoshop in an obvious way to make a point in some of my own work, so I could take inspiration from Edgar Martins and use it subtly to make an image more persuasive. However if I chose to do this I would have to ask myself if this would question the integrity of my work or would I want to declare that I had edited it even though that might make it less believable?
No comments:
Post a Comment