and looking beyond a glossy ad in a magazine, this time for avant garde filmmaker Nathaniel Dorsky and a still (above) from his 1996 film called Triste.
One of the reasons why I am exploring the ads in artforum is that I was finding myself glazing over the ads and not giving them much thought? I thought it would be fun to explore who the artist is and get out there with my camera and challenge myself.
I'm not unhappy with what I photographed, but it was the process of doing it that was more important rather than the end result. I don't have the skill to capture the " sense of impermanence and mystery" of nature in photographs or film, but I had fun trying. The danger of seeing an image in a mag is that we don't always see beyond the glossy image and don't get a sense of context or feel the impact (any of you shocked/surprised when you see a painting at a show and it is much smaller or larger than you thought). Photographs of Rothko's paintings will never capture the feeling one gets in a room full of his work. There is this wonderful quiet beauty and tranquility that a little glossy print in a magazine can never do justice. Same with seeing Ron Mueck's figures, which I hear evoke a whole range of emotions that a pic of them can't.
So I learned a little about Dorsky, had fun trying something new, and now have a new appreciation for the image in the magazine.
Just a side note. Talking about re-seeing an image I really like what Cedar Lee did on her blog entry titled Hypothetical Settings. Wow, what a difference seeing her paintings in a room, gives a completely new perspective of the paintings and how they work in various settings.