Friday, November 3, 2006

Adler

Adler’s presentation was characterized by a contained intensity. I felt he really tried to express something one does not hear often about the uneasy relationship we have with the city. His idea of “in-betweness” stayed with me all night (as well as giving peoples and places the opportunity to exude beauty). I think his art is so much in tune with Baudelaire that he becomes the flâneur! What do you think?

6 comments:

Michele Rowand said...

From what I read on line about Baudelaire, he hated photography because it was too realistic. So while he might have enjoyed the subject matter of Adler's works he would not have enjoyed the medium he used to express them.

Also Baudelaire might have found Adler's optimism within his subject matter a problem. Baudelaire seemed to like to point out fakes. I bet he would have like the concept of the modern man as a fetish as Adler had drawn.

A.T. said...

Michele, sure, insofar as Baudelaire sees photograpy as a "modern invention," he distrusts it. Yet, as an observer of the city, he would have welcomed what his contemporary Nadar or Cartier-Bresson in the 20th Century did with it (Nadar did a famous photo of Baudelaire). Then, photography became the ideal medium (as Adler suggested because of its immediacy)to capture the essence of the instant in the modern city.

Kelly Flynn said...

I really enjoyed Adler’s presentation. It is great that he uses what he has readily available such as equipment and environment to make his photographs. I found the Green Spaces project a little more interesting that the City series. With the Green Spaces photographs, the viewer has more of a chance to be imaginative of where they are, you can get lost more easily. In the City series, you are automatically put in a specific environment, such as downtown. I also thought the night city images were more successful than the daytime shots because of the nice lighting. Adler’s drawings were very interesting too – I liked the ciaos, repeating themes, and the color choices that he used.

Anonymous said...

It would seem obvious that one’s surroundings should affect his/hers work, in this case art. There are several aspects that go into an artist’s work, not only the social forces involved, but also subject matter, content, etc., all of which are legitimate characteristics. I think it is beneficial to an artist to let these social elements affect one’s work. So many art movements came about with the embrace or sometimes refusal of the social status of its time. The pop art movement for example, its philosophy emphasizes the idea that the material world is the only thing that matters and that we are all viewed by society as disposable consumers. This may touch a bit on what others may have mentioned about “commercial art”. What is the relevance of “commercial art” in today’s society…
-J. Tao

intophoto said...

AT, I didn't go to your class to see Adler's presentation but I like his work. I was in your class and went to his last show at Snitzer, pretty interesting. He's a little shy though.

Shellyvqxp said...

I really enjoyed Adler’s presentation. It is great that he uses what he has readily available such as equipment and environment to make his photographs. I found the Green Spaces project a little more interesting that the City series. With the Green Spaces photographs, the viewer has more of a chance to be imaginative of where they are, you can get lost more easily. In the City series, you are automatically put in a specific environment, such as downtown. I also thought the night city images were more successful than the daytime shots because of the nice lighting. Adler’s drawings were very interesting too – I liked the ciaos, repeating themes, and the color choices that he used.