By Christian Viveros-Fauné
By Miriam Felton-Dansky
By Tom Sellar
By Tom Sellar
By Jessica Dawson
By Tom Sellar
By R. C. Baker
By Tom Sellar
When it comes to working large, Gursky is far from alone. Recent shows by Hiroshi Sugimoto, Nan Goldin, Wolfgang Tillmans, Thomas Demand, Vik Muniz, and Charlie White (the last three still running) featured photos that had to be measured in feet, not inches. Thomas Ruff has turned uninflected portraits and scrambled porn into heroic iconography, Mariko Mori fills walls with her hallucinogenic sci-fi panoramas, and Chuck Close has nearly matched the colossal scale of his painted heads with equally confrontational photos. The much reproduced Inez van Lamsweerde image included in the Whitney's devilishly diverting "BitStreams" roundupthe massive Me Kissing Vinoodh (Passionately), from which the photographer's collaborator-lover has been digitally disappearedups the Gursky ante by coming in at a billboard-sized nine by 16 feet.
Although big photography isn't entirely new (Richard Avedon, who has been making outsize prints since 1962, first showed his life-size group portrait of the Chicago Seven in 1970), its ubiquity and prominence is. Grand scale has always been about ambitionabout the urge to dominate and to inspire awe. But for some time now many artists' impulse to supersize it has been mostly a matter of keeping up with or besting the competition. Laurie Simmons, whose wonderful early pictures could fit comfortably into the average desk drawer, admits that she and her contemporaries Cindy Sherman, Sarah Charlesworth, and Barbara Kruger started to make bigger and bigger pieces in the '80s in order "to compete with the guys." Like other artists who used photography and showed their work in art galleries, Simmons and crew "wanted to hang next to painting," and eventually they all did. But their largest photos seem rather modest. Advances in technology and materials have made giant prints not just possible but available to more artists. But when virtually everyone is striving for new levels of drop-dead monumentality, size loses its power to wow and becomes almost beside the point.
Van Lamsweerde's piece is a perfect example of scale for scale's sake. While the imagea freakishly eroded figure isolated in profile against a brick wallis undeniably arresting, its size is utterly gratuitous. The same photo is reproduced in the "BitStreams" pamphlet at four and a half by eight inches, and it loses nothing but its pretension to grandeur. Gursky, on the other hand, is all but meaningless in reproduction. As packed with specific content as his photos are, they are not mere information (which is all the printed page can easily convey), they're objects whose deliberately calibrated impact isn't dependent on boffo subject matter. In fact, some of the most spectacular pieces in the Gursky show are of decidedly unspectacular subjects: a rough patch of dirt road in the sun, a ceiling full of gridded light fixtures in Brasilia, and an expanse of gray industrial carpeting in the Düsseldorf Kunsthalle. In his savvy, lucid catalog essay, Peter Galassi, the exhibition's curator, describes this last image as "a picture of radical emptiness," and its combination of meticulous realism and lost-in-space abstraction comes as a relief in a show dense with detail and incident. But Gursky can fill a huge photo edge to edge with people and thingsfrom frantic rave parties and stock market trading floors to busy harbors, racetracks, and ski slopesand still achieve what Galassi calls a "hypnotic stillness." Along with an unerring sense of composition, this eerie stasis (which is partly the result of Gursky's detached, often omniscient vantage point) gives even the most amorphous mass a shape and imposes order on subjects that would otherwise sprawl out of control.
MOMA's show also includes several early (mid-'80s) Gursky photos in much smaller formats. Though their subject matterAlpine landscapes, leisure sportsisn't appreciably different from the later, larger images, they have little of the rigor or exactitude of that work. But it's really their scale that renders them negligible at MOMA. Maybe they'd look better bigger, but because they weren't conceived on a grand scale, I suspect they'd simply fall apart. Gursky's enormous photos may be mock magnificent (they simultaneously inflate and deflate global self-satisfaction), but they've earned their size; they don't just take up space, they command it.
Because so many large photos seemdriven by market forces rather than aesthetic imperatives, few achieve this intelligent fusion of style and content. Not many artists are working with the sort of aggressive monumentality of scale that Gursky commands, but plenty of them are pushing into the wall-grabbing territory formerly reserved only for paintings. For too many photographers, however, bigger is not better; a weak image doesn't suddenly look important when it's blown up to the size of a store window (most egregious case in point: Micha Klein). Sure, genuine artists have all this in perspective. Look, for instance, at the current shows by Jeff Wall, whose peculiarly resonant narrative fragments are at Marian Goodman, and Annette Lemieux, who hangs diaphanous photomurals (including one of the artist walking on water that's 16 feet wide) at McKee. But with pointless gigantism rampant elsewhere, smaller photoseven those that were once considered large-scaleare looking better than ever.