Comments on Blogs about Four Artists

I found it interesting to see that people chose many different images of these artists to accompany their comments. It just goes to show how differently people can respond to the same artwork. It was nice to see that everyone seemed to enjoy Hocks humor, while several recognized the irony and frustration inherent in the images. I guess it's like watching Wile E. Coyote getting blasted - you laugh, but you can also relate on some level to something that "blew up" in your own life.
Bryan's noted Jeff Wall's contention that ideas are not always best communicated through visuals, despite the old saying about 1,000 words. As Bryan expressed, I also enjoyed Hocks' fusing of media.
Adri's comments were very well thought out. I also noticed Jeff Wall's use of distance. I appreciated that she showed us another very different piece by Sherman. Crewsdon implied Magritte for me also.
Amy 's discussion of the sizes of the works was interesting as I had allowed the format of the computer to cloud my perception of the actual sizes of the works.
Ceire's point not to separate an artist's writings from his/her art was a good one and went along with what Bryan was saying (see above).
Lizz's comment about Sherman's stills and their voyeristic feeling was something I also experienced. I think this only makes sense since these are meant to represent movies and one is often a voyeur when watching a film.
Elle's mention of the layers in Crewsdon's work makes me think of Photoshop!
Katie's comment about Wall's work feeling candid, when in fact it is always staged was something I also felt when viewing his work.
Lots of excellent observations!

Four Digital Artists to Consider

My impression of the artists Cindy Sherman, Teun Hocks, Jeff Wall and GregoryCrewsdon is that they all create a very stylized view of the world. Each uses what are sometimes complex and at the least, very carefully thought out, methods to create their images. When I think of more traditional photographers, I think of Cartier-Bresson's "decisive moment" and how different that way of working is from the way these artists are creating. This is not to say that they are not inspired in a serendipitous way by other images or scenes they see.

Cindy Sherman's work is clearly based on the films she has seen and the stills made from, but her process seems much more laborious than the quick captures of a film frame. I like the way it feels as if you've seen the image before, but you haven't. She's just captured the feel and look of a similar scene so well that the eye and memory are fooled.

As for Crewsdon, he says he sometimes has crews of 35 people working on the scenes he creates. That's a lot of detail work! This is why I say their work overall seems stylized, not necessarily because the scenes are implausible or unrealistic, but because of all the effort that is put into fabricating the "moment". Crewsdon's work is much sadder than Hocks' and one can feel the sense of isolation in many of his pieces. He uses light very effectively to guide the viewer's eye to his intended point of focus.

Jeff Wall's work, while also very staged, somehow seems to have more interaction between the subject (even when it's himself!) and the photographer as the people in his photographs are often engaging the viewer with their gaze. Even when they're not looking at the camera, the viewer feels he/she is there in the scene. Some of his work has a very 80s feel to me. I don't quite understand the use of the lightbox, but perhaps if I viewed a work in person I would find it contributes.

I found Tuen Hocks work to be very humorous and enjoyed the fact that he uses himself in every photo. Unlike Cindy Sherman, you know it's him. I can't help but think of Magritte here with all the bowler hats and the surrealistic feel to his work. I love the hand coloring and the way he alters the feeling of the piece with color.