In this review, Andy Grundberg reviews an art exhibit that focuses on bringing artistic techniques back from the late 19th to early 20th century. The exhibit by David McDermott and Peter McGough shows the use of photographic and other artistic techniques to bring some "lost art" into the late 20th century. Mr. Gundberg acknowledging at first that these works first appear to only add to the idea that contemporary art has "lost its way" and that these works are just some of many contemporary works that cause some to wonder just where contemporary art is going.
David McDermott and Peter McGough are two artist that work together to bring back 19th century photographic techniques. They also do paintings in the style of the time. He says through the combination of old style photography and erotic subject matter, they are able to convey the idea that morals and identity crises of the Victorian era still exist today. But Grundberg warns us the works are not about rejecting modernism for these earlier ways, but to acknowledge that such ideas and styles have survived and entered the modernism of today. The review then overviews some of their work show, many of which go along with what Grundberg eluded to before: pointing out how the past has survived into the present. Grundberg also seems to indicate that the duo is also trying to convey some humor in this, by mentioning that they dress the part of earlier time periods and sign everything with years that predate this century, even though the actual works were made within 5 years of the the due working together, with both men being only in their 30's. Grundberg concluded, that while at first their art is able to take one back to the time, the anachronistic element of it tends to undermine the immersiveness of bringing one back to 1850, and the photos begin to lack their original substance.
My response:
While I was not able to find images from the exhibition, I was able to find current photography from David McDermott and Peter McGough. Their work, however, is very similar to what Grundberg said: old style photos that deal with the identities and style of the past. Their more recent photographic works deal with the 1950s, in which they photography what people looked and dressed like, as well as how they interacted. Initially, in contrast to how Grundberg felt about their exhibit, I found these photos very compelling, as if they have sucked me back to 1950. The subject matter of the photos themselves are very convincing in depicting what people from 1950 were like. However, if I were to not know when these photos are taken, I'd say they truly were from 1950. But in realizing the photos are not, they do serve to show how things from the 1950s pop up in our everyday culture. At the same time, however, it takes away from the realism and immersion the photos once had. It seems their photos here, much like the ones Grundberg looked at, have the same problem: they can't convey the ideas locked within without taking the viewer out of the scene. The is no happy medium between immersion and convention; it seems you either can only appreciate the photo or appreciate the idea. My opinion is that this is due to the fact that the photos mimic the actual photographs of the past so well, they look just like any other photo from the time, and without prior knowledge that takes us out of the photos we cannot obtain the ideas conveyed in these pictures. This seems to be an example of how perfection is not obtained by taking the perfect photo.
Images by David McDermott and Peter McGough
Source of review: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/30/arts/review-art-in-an-archaic-manner-with-modern-overtones.html?ref=andy_grundberg
