Candida Höfer
Candida Höfer, Teatro Nacional de Sao Carlos Lisboa I, 2005
Last weekend I walked over to Chelsea to see some of the fall shows happening around town. At Sonnabend Gallery, I found a new body of work by
Candida Höfer, one of the German photographic art stars (
Gursky,
Ruff,
Struth) who studied with
Bernd and Hilla Becher at the Düsseldorf Academy of Art in Germany.
I've seen her work many times before, but the photographs never seem to impress me. I'm not saying that her photographs aren't beautiful or interesting to look at. The photograph shown above is probably my favorite from the current show and I'm happy to see that she's finally switched cameras from a Hasselblad to a 4x5 which I think is better suited to the kind of work she does. Part of me is just annoyed with what I believe she is getting away with and the other part of me finds the work lazy.
I know that some of my work has elements in common with Höfer's. We're both interested in architecture as well as the use of that architecture in the world, we both prefer our spaces empty and with subtle hints of human presence, we both work in color and print fairly large photographs (though Höfer's are much much larger). In the end I'm not quite sure what she is getting away with nor with who but I guess what it boils down to is that I don't care much for her life project, it seems too simplistic and easy.
Here is what she has said about her work:
“I photograph in public and semi-public spaces that date from various epochs. These are spaces accessible to everyone. They are places where you can meet and communicate, where you can share or receive knowledge, where you can relax and recover. They are spas, hotels, waiting rooms, museums, libraries, universities, banks, churches and, as of a few years ago, zoos. All of the places have a purpose, as for the most part do the things within them.”
Two of her most recent bodies of work are called
In Portugal (on view at Sonnabend) and
Louvre. Point your camera at any space or gallery of the Louvre and I think most (competent) photographers would come away with some pretty dramatic photographs, but isn't that because the place itself is so dramatic and historic to begin with. I've felt a similar feeling for Struth's Museum photographs as well although they are quite different in that they have people in them.
The question I'm asking myself is: What makes the photographs of these places so special or interesting and when does a photograph of architecture become more than just a document of that place? I guess I'm really asking the big question: when does a photograph of anything become art?
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 7:02 am and is filed under Architecture, Photography.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Vexed questions indeed which Hofer fails to answer in her rather less than erudite explanation of her work. Of her work, I have asked myself the simple question, why? The fact that her prints are large does not endow them with some extra special meaning in my view unless, that is, price per square metre becomes an issue. Perhaps I am missing her point and being too cynical in which case I apologise to her unreservedly.
i think a photograph becomes art when it’s called such. whether it’s good or not or whether it really says anything is another question. and it can’t really be answered definitively, as it’s an entirely personal question. photographs which i find great, moving pieces of art, such as kelli connell’s, my friends say are cheap and gimmicky, and vice versa.
I don’t know what makes hofer’s work art, and sometimes when looking at them i wonder if i would have the same exact experience if i were standing where her lens was, but i must say i just saw a photograph of her’s at the philadelphia museum of art of a baroque spanish church and for some inexplicable reason i thought that it was the most beautiful photograph i have ever seen. as far as struth i think that the work is really smart. the museum images are exactly like his early street photos, about a moment that is a layer of time. i think that always comes back to the point so many people miss, that just because two things look similar does not mean the have the same meaning.
I love Candida Höffers pictures, because I think, that by photographing those very much designed and very well considered rooms in the cool and objective way that she does, her pictures goes fare beyond the mere registration of architecture, and draws a rather deep portrait of the species that made those rooms. That’s what make those pictures art to me, – that I think I discover something new each time I look at them.
photography is art when it is a visually represented idea, nothing to do with taste, objective not subjective.
Your site is intriguing! Keep up the beautiful idea!
I don’t know about that. I’m not sure I agree with your ideas. I’ll just agree to disagree. Thanks for the post.