Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: paolo roversi exhibit wed night in NYC  (Read 16447 times)
203
Guest
« on: May 20, 2008, 05:21:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Not to get off track and talk about actual photography  but there's a Paolo Roversi exhibit tomorrow (wed.) in NYC.
You in town J.R.? Want to meet me over there? :-)

http://pacemacgill.com/index.html

PACE/MACGILL GALLERY

 
 
Paolo Roversi: Guinevere

Pace/MacGill Gallery is pleased to announce an exhibition of photographs by Paolo Roversi on view from May 21 – June 14, 2008.  This exhibition marks Roversi’s third solo show in New York City.

 

Please join us for an opening reception with the artist on Wednesday, May 21 from 5:30 – 7:30pm.  

 

Photography, as a medium, encourages the prolonged examination and documentation of a subject over time.  To that end, the photographs on view (1996-present) exclusively depict Roversi’s friend and model, Guinevere, over the past twelve years.  Roversi’s pictures move beyond the physical facts; as his muse, Guinevere inspires Roversi to create images that are both abstract meditations on the alchemy of beauty as well as intimate studies. Whether wearing haute couture or photographed nude, Guinevere’s allure is palpable. The sum of the pictures’ parts results in unconventional, often provocative portraits.

 

Like Richard Avedon and Irving Penn, Roversi’s photographs eloquently bridge the spheres of commercial photography and fine art: they are as successful on a magazine’s pages as they are on a gallery or museum’s walls.  At the invitation of Elle’s art director Peter Knapp, Roversi moved to Paris in 1972 where he established a reputation as one of fashion’s pre-eminent photographers.  In 1980, Roversi began using Polaroid’s instant 8 x 10 film and it soon became his preferred format. As adventurous technically as he is aesthetically, Roversi has made Polaroid, gelatin silver, dye transfer, carbon and pigment prints.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
32 EAST 57th STREET NEW YORK NY 10022 / PHONE 212.759.7999 / FAX 212.759.8964 / E-MAIL info@pacemacgill.com
« Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 06:06:26 PM by 203 » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2008, 02:30:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for posting this, I would have missed the show.  PR's stuff is so nice and real, it has a sophisticated edginess to it that we don't see too much of anymore.
Logged
narikin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 862


« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2008, 03:19:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Pace MacGill seems to have had a couple of vanity fashion shows back to back, it was Lagerfeld last week (in the exact same space!). Not sure what they are doing, other than leasing out their space maybe, or getting good p.r. This used to be one of the most serious photo galleries in town, but I think they've been drinking too much kool-aid recently.

Personally I'd recommend anyone to go see the Becher's show at MoMA just 4 blocks away, over this superficial twaddle... but each to their own, I guess.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2008, 07:58:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Pace MacGill seems to have had a couple of vanity fashion shows back to back, it was Lagerfeld last week (in the exact same space!). Not sure what they are doing, other than leasing out their space maybe, or getting good p.r. This used to be one of the most serious photo galleries in town, but I think they've been drinking too much kool-aid recently.

Personally I'd recommend anyone to go see the Becher's show at MoMA just 4 blocks away, over this superficial twaddle... but each to their own, I guess.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197104\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The art/commerce overlap is, to me, fine unless it really does degenerate to pure commerce.  I think PR's stuff is on a fairly high plain, and is fine portraiture.  

I really do not care for the Bechers.  If you've seen one formalist topographic study of rusting machinery you don't need to see another, much less 40 years of this stuff.  The first two images will be great then its repetition, which is at the core of Modernism.  It is, however, impressive in terms of technique and printing.  My homseslice who heads up the A/V department says its stunning but, well, its room after room of rusting machinery.  Boring snooze snooze. I also don't like the cult they started.  Their impact on art photography and their heavy, heavy influence on German art education, especially in Niedersachsen, is really horrible.  german art students were, in the 80's, forced to conform to standards of German Art.  Anything outside of the narrow canon of the Bechers' philosophy and aesthetic was considered to be "New York" and was suppressed, often by student led confrontations with those who were off the reservation.  

In any case, PR's stuff is, to me, more honest and heartfelt than most current sogennante fine art photography, especially the new topography when it isn't really well done.  Go to an MFA show, read artist statements, its all utter bullshit.  Everyone is a little Eggelston, little Teller, little Hilde.  Its visual Kareoke.  The gallerists need to make a buck and they don't trust their own taste but I digress. But what do I know, I'm just a pud producing superficial twaddle that birds shit on two month later.    
Logged
LumiWill
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2008, 03:51:15 AM »
ReplyReply

... Go to an MFA show, read artist statements, its all utter bullshit.  Everyone is a little Eggelston, little Teller, little Hilde.  Its visual Kareoke ...

As a student myself, I share your view that most of the MFA grad probably lack a lot of substance. I believe as the artist matures he/she can then produce work that is reflective of that growth. I didn't study photography until I was in my late 20's and I, like many, wanted to be a little bit of Mario Sorrenti, diCorcia, etc. I laughed as I observed that most of my peers(18-20 y.o.) wanted to dress like an artist more so than be an artist. I look at Ryan McGinley and how he is maturing as an artist and it gives hope that future works in art photography can satisfy both art and commence.
Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2008, 09:54:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Paolo has been one of my heroes for a long time. I am really inspired by his fashion, editorial portraiture, etc.

Here is some more of his work:

http://claire.belliard.free.fr/claire_roversi/index2.html

Any by the way, the party was great.

(p.s. narikin: I could not disagree with you more.)
« Last Edit: May 22, 2008, 10:02:22 AM by 203 » Logged
richardhagen
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2008, 11:06:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Narikan,
I couldn't agree with you more.

Well, I suppose if you are bored by work that embodies understatement, subtly and patience, then you will be bored by Bernd and Hilla Becher's life work. If you are bored by objects that at first glance might look alike, but a more purposeful look reveals the enormous difference between the objects, then you will be bored by the Becher's work. If you are bored by going back in time by looking at images of the last vestiges of the industrial age, then you will be bored by their work.
Logged
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 789


« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2008, 11:23:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Roversi is one of the greatest photographers of the 20th & 21st century, period. He does fashion with a soul like few others. Pictures of decaying industrial buildings are fine, but seeing a whole exhibit of that would quite frankly bore me to death. Thinking that this is the height of "real" photography, and accusing Roversi's photography of being shallow, to me is just plain narrow-minded and pretentious.
Logged
203
Guest
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2008, 12:11:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Narikan,
I couldn't agree with you more.

Well, I suppose if you are bored by work that embodies understatement,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


To clarify, when I said I disagreed with narikin, I was referring to his comments on Roversi only.
Logged
paulmoorestudio
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 241


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2008, 01:29:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Roversi is one of the greatest photographers of the 20th & 21st century, period. He does fashion with a soul like few others. Pictures of decaying industrial buildings are fine, but seeing a whole exhibit of that would quite frankly bore me to death. Thinking that this is the height of "real" photography, and accusing Roversi's photography of being shallow, to me is just plain narrow-minded and pretentious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

While I don't feel I can rate him, I would have to say the small selection in the show was a nice range of work, beautifully printed and displayed. Both the photographer and the subject were at the opening and it was a good night.  I have been critical in the past of the glitz and pomp of the fashion world, thinking that a lot of photographers get a free ride on the tales of the subjects.. but I feel the work that is up in the gallery was strong and showed his passion for the medium.  I was impressed and made a point to tell him. Thanks for posting as I would have not gone!
Logged

Chris Livsey
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 303



« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2008, 02:28:42 PM »
ReplyReply

At last a thread about photography and not pixels. Many thanks to all posters concerned.
Logged

Chris Livsey

http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/

It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
Snook
Guest
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2008, 03:36:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
At last a thread about photography and not pixels. Many thanks to all posters concerned.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197285\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Shooting Large Format like he does ... You better have your stuff together..:+}
No digital there.
Snook
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2008, 04:02:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Narikan,
I couldn't agree with you more.

Well, I suppose if you are bored by work that embodies understatement, subtly and patience, then you will be bored by Bernd and Hilla Becher's life work. If you are bored by objects that at first glance might look alike, but a more purposeful look reveals the enormous difference between the objects, then you will be bored by the Becher's work. If you are bored by going back in time by looking at images of the last vestiges of the industrial age, then you will be bored by their work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197260\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It bores me because I've been looking at their "lifes' work" for 35 years.  It all looks the same in the end and what you take away is the one detail or one photograph that struck you.  The rest are superfluous.  That's my take on the Bechers.  

And as to your statement above, well, I won't comment.  I think it speaks for itself.
Logged
bryanyc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2008, 04:34:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Roversi is one of the greatest photographers of the 20th & 21st century, period. He does fashion with a soul like few others.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197262\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Umm, that is hyperbole.  I could name 5 fashion photographers that are better.
And a hundred other photographers of other stripes that are way better.

Sheesh..  look, I appreciate a picture of beautiful nekked girl, or in haute couture clothes, but I do keep my head on my shoulders when judging art.
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #14 on: May 22, 2008, 04:53:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Lets keep this thread as civil as possible so it doesn't degenerate into a shouting match.  Its nice to have thread about photography.  And remember, what people write are opinions and yes they are like a$$holes.  So lets keep attacks limited to the artist under discussion rather than  the source of the [probably stupid] opinion.  This keeps death threats and bruised egos to a minimum.

Thanks!
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 22, 2008, 07:10:04 PM »
ReplyReply

a lot of fashion photographers have art shows and if you would have said that lagerfeld's stuff is not worth looking at i might have agreed....i might have agreed if you would have called a lot of other fashion shooter's stuff "fluff" because for the most part you might be right (they still sell as art though...very well!)....but roversi is in a different league alltogether...he might not be one of the 25 best photographers of the last 50 years but has always pushed the limits in terms of using lights and printing techniques and has pretty much completely ignored any trend when it comes to fashion or commercial photography....his work is very unique and definitely worth checking out....original prints are just amazing....i have only seen a couple once and appreciated his work even more form that moment on.....the guy is a real photographer in the sense that he never stops playing with cameras, lenses, lights, film and paper....the brechers just use photography to get a point across....they don't experiment with the medium at all....i am not saying one is better then the other but as a photographer one interests me just much more then the other....
broaden your horizons....
Logged

Kitty
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 22, 2008, 09:31:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Paolo Roversi is the great photographer. His work is art.
I wonder now polaroid stop.
How does he take photo? Switch to digital?
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #17 on: May 22, 2008, 09:58:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Paolo Roversi is the great photographer. His work is art.
I wonder now polaroid stop.
How does he take photo? Switch to digital?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sarah Moon as well.  What is she going to do w/o Type 55?
Logged
Murray Fredericks
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 290



WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 22, 2008, 10:00:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
they don't experiment with the medium at all....

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197337\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think the Bechers have definitely experimented with the medium and with what it can be used to say. Do you mean that they do not experiement with the technical - printing and other materials?

 I love the way Bechers have found beauty and art in the skill of the engineers and builders who made all 'their' rusty industrial constructions...I also love the way the Bechers have found beauty existing in the 'comparisons' between the images - hence the need for the repetition.

It takes longer to 'get' the Bechers while PRs work hits you much faster...I wonder which will stand the test of time?

Murray
Logged

pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2008, 12:15:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think the Bechers have definitely experimented with the medium and with what it can be used to say. Do you mean that they do not experiement with the technical - printing and other materials?

 I love the way Bechers have found beauty and art in the skill of the engineers and builders who made all 'their' rusty industrial constructions...I also love the way the Bechers have found beauty existing in the 'comparisons' between the images - hence the need for the repetition.

It takes longer to 'get' the Bechers while PRs work hits you much faster...I wonder which will stand the test of time?

Murray
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=197365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i did not mean to say anything negative about the bechers....they have their place in photography history and art history....they were also teachers to a whole generation of later german photographers (incl. gursky and struth)....
i just tried to make a point that bechers and roversi have a different approach to photography and are interesting for different reasons...if you don't like roversi's pics or "art" you can still appreciate it for its technique and creative use of light....
it really does not make any sense at all to compare the two anyway.....
and it does not make any sense to say that one' work is "fluff" because the subject matter happens to be a great model whereas old industrial structures carry much deeper meaning?

i personally consider penn more interesting then becher or roversi....but that does not make him any better or the others less important....just a personal opinion...and actually i don't really care what stands "the test of time"
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad