Saudek is one trippy little Czech, but this gallery was a lot of fun - in part because it is shocking and vastly different from everything else we've seen. To me the question is not whether photography can be art, but rather what kind of art it is. Is it bound by the same rules as other mediums, or does it stand alone?
It is interesting that Saudek's work has gotten edgier in recent years. Just looking through his website shows pretty start contrasts between the last 15 years and everything else. The older stuff seems to revolve a lot more around the family, while the more contemporary work is sexual and risque. Often you hear about artists sort of refining their style in their later years. I wonder if this is the case for Saudek. The skeptic would probably suggest that photos like "the journey" are Saudek's attempt to make up for his lack of creativity. I don't know what to think, but it does make me wonder. Sometimes it's easy to grab on to something really extreme and try and make it a profound artistic statement. I mean, what does the image of a man walking his toddler into an unknown vagina say about the world? (I kind of want to write a little caption over the baby like, "Shoot man turn around, I just got out of here!")
Amanda brought up the idea of using nudity to express and/or explore the subconscious. It makes sense to me to talk about nudity as a way of exploring intimacy, sexuality, vulnerability, and the like, but I don't think I buy in to the unconscious argument. Then again psychiatry and I have never been the best of friends.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment