A Photographer To Explore: Ethan Killian
The artworks in this post are by Ethan Killian. © All rights reserved by Ethan Killian.
(Click on the images to view them larger.)
You can visit his Flickr profile page:
http://www.flickr.com/people/ethankillian/
- -
For regular readers: Thank you to the new (and old) Facebook and email subscribers.
- -
Return To Home Page – Artists’ Artworks Index – RSS or Follow in sidebar ->
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
1:27 PM CST
Mark/Ethan Killian :
…Sorry Mark/Ethan, as you know I’m from old school photography and I’ve see a lot (too much, waaaay too much ) of this digital sludge posing as “photography”. This is not photography, and it is not art. This is self-indulgence pretending to be art. You don’t “set up” human figures in just any arbitrary manner you choose, place them in a “photo-shopped” pseudo-surrealistic backdrop, and call it “photography”. It is what it is : A contrived, not well thought out, manipulated exercise in self-indulgence.
Not photography. Not art.
J.B.
- –
Mark: James, I believe the Doobie Brothers said it best:
Down around the corner half a mile from here
See them long trains run and you watch them dissapear
Without love where would you be now?
Without love
Though i saw miss lucy down along the track
She lost her home and her family and she won t be coming back
Without love where would you be now?
Without love
Well the Illinois Central and the Southern Central Freight
You got to keep on pushing mamma you know they’re running late
Without love where would you be now?
Without love
Well the Illinois Central and the Southern Central Freight
You got to keep on pushing mamma you know they’re running late
Without love where would you be now?
Without love
- –
I think you’re definition of “art” may today have been revealed to be crucibly small. I don’t know if the artist considers his work art, but I do.
But since you commented, none of the backgrounds are articial. While they may look artificial, they are not from other sources. If you look through his Flickr stream, you can see other points of view in the desert landscapes where these photos were taken. Those wild buildings in the distance . . . actual buildings.
But technicalities aside, since when did the use of digital editing preclude something from being an artwork? The Sistine Chapel is still an artwork with the colors “restored,” isn’t it?
I love the clarity and clearness in Killian’s work. As can be seen consistently above, his emphasis in these pictures is: Humans clearly being seen and recognized against arid, unfocused, or other harsh environments. That intentional juxtaposition says something positive and pleasant to me: Health vs. indifference. Life in the midst of inhospitality. Intentional, kind, and expressive visual communications instead of emptiness or lonelines. I can see at least all those things.
Wait a minute . . . this may have been just the art you needed to see today.
…5:25 PM CST…
@ Mark
Nice try Mark, but it won’t fly. Do I have to critique each image. No.
What I said was ” “…’photo-shopped’ pseudo surrealistic backdrop…”; I’m not questioning whether the “buildings in the background” are “real”. And I don’t have to go to “Flickr” to show me how to recognize art. (Although I did “go” there to see his other images , before I made any comment)
It’s revealing in and of itself that anyone would have to “go to ‘Flickr’” to determine if the “artist” was using “real buildings” or artificial constructs; it’s a moot argument because it wasn’t the point of my criticism to begin with.
No I’m saying he is clearly attempting to mimic the old filter/polarization styles for background “effect” and juxtaposing human figures in static, awkward self-indulgent posturing.
Not sure how the quaint metaphors of a lost love in a Doobie Brothers’ song relate to the debate; you lost me on that one.
Perhaps you may be reading more into the song ( or “photos”) than I can see :
Quote :
“That intentional juxtaposition says something positive and pleasant to me: Health vs. indifference.”
Health vs. indifference ? Where do you “see” that in this imagery ?
If your suggesting “Youth” as a paradigm for “Health”, and empty, stark landscapes as the paradigm for “Indifference”, then it’s your emotions that are being manipulated here, by way of “photo shop”, or whatever cyber trick he unabashedly confesses to in his bio; not any “new” discovery or “new’ art form. Juxtaposing human beings in stark landscapes is as old as Western art. Artists have used it for centuries; I’ve done it myself. This doesn’t make a self-professed “computer-geek” a “photographer” or an “artist”.
And yes, did you read his “bio”? His use of language and hyperbole reveal the same superficiality self-evident in his contrived digital imagery.
Quote :
“The Sistine Chapel is still an artwork with the colors “restored,” isn’t it?”
Clever Mark…:)…still won’t fly ! Remember, we’ve addressed this before. When the restoration was “complete” (and I’m glad you did use quotations with “restore”, because it was more an “uncovering”), it showed exactly how the ceiling was intended to be decorative and flattering to the State Church. Michelangelo is also well known to have confessed to his limitations as a painter; his purist, greatest art expression lie in his sculpture, NOT his chapel ceiling decorations.
Quote :
“But technicalities aside, since when did the use of digital editing preclude something from being an artwork”
Good question.
The strength of your argument may well sound in the medium of cinema, where, as you well know, many art forms converge. But I’ll never concede that digital manipulation in and of itself constitute and “art form”. The jury’s still out on that. I challenge you to consider latent warnings about that very issue Spielberg handed down to us in his brilliant “A.I.”.
I suspect that cinema will be regarded by our descendants as the greatest art form of the 20th century, much as we regard the Old Masters.
But for the subject at hand, you just made my case. Thank you. You can’t put “technicalities aside” in one breath, then talk about “digital editing” in the same sentence and try to defend the “miracles of the electronic pixel” as “art”.
Quote:
“I love the clarity and clearness in Killian’s work.”
“clarity” ? “clearness” ? Lost me again there…:)…
What you’re “seeing” Mark is sterility. Mimicry.
What you’re “seeing” is just one of many “clear”, heartless 21st Century interpretations of “art”
To me, that’ scary. No, this is not the “art (I) needed to see today”…:)…
J.B.
- -
Mark:
J.B hit the nail on the head. This guy is a pseudo hipster who tries to confuse us all with his “artistic nature”, when really he is just another manipulator to the art.
Also I think it is pretty obvious that “mark” is Ethan. Did you notice his eloquent speech pattern, trying to make each simple sentence sound like its a stanza out of a poem?
- –
Mark: Why all the hate for Ethan? I don’t even know him, I just enjoy the photographs. But why all the opposition to either the imagery or incidental opinions about it?
As far as the “Mark is Ethan” conspiracy theory, that’s kind of silly. It would be odd for a person to spend over 6 years writing over 1000 posts about several hundred artists – for the miniscule purpose of pretending to be one of the hundreds of photographers highlighted. No worries, but kinda silly.
And for those of you keeping score at home, I’m pretty sure there’s no difference between a “pseudo hipster” and a “hipster.”