28 November 2007


“'New Photography' is generally limited to three or four artists,
which puts pressure on the chosen few to deliver something
fresh. None of this year’s photographers accomplish that."

There you have it. The key judgement in The New York Times review of "New Photography 2007" now showing at MOMA in NYC. I guess we should all rush out to take in the show? The three photographers with work in this exhibition are Tanyth Berkeley, Scott McFarland, & Berni Searle. Having looked at their work on line, it seems to me that The Times assessment is about right. It is not that the work is bad, only that there is nothing vaguely pathbreaking or "fresh" about it (Berkeley, in particular seems to me to be more or less wholly derivative). So what is the curator, Eva Respini, thinking?



Blogger Joerg Colberg said...

Doesn't MOMA have a $20 admission fee? Who pays $20 for "new" photography when you can see it for free in Chelsea?

28 November, 2007 09:11  
Blogger stanco said...

All in all, not anywhere near half as ludicrous as when other photo authorities recently tried to issue in the dawn of a B&W Revival simply by... proclaiming it.

28 November, 2007 15:56  
Blogger BRENDAN STUMPF said...

I think it's a fine show. Being a tecaher of mine, Eva gave us a personal tour and defended the work pretty admirably. Maybe it's not a sampling of the freshest new work, but it certainly isn't old hat. When has MoMA ever been a vanguard?

02 December, 2007 15:48  
Blogger Jim Johnson said...

Brendan, Thanks for the comment. My point is simply that the title of the show "New Photography 2007" seems like false advertising. I dodn't choose the title, the MOMA folk did.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little, if anything, "new" in the work she chose. I am hardly an expert in all things photographic, but I have seen all of this work before. None of it strikes me (or the reviewer from The Times)as even close to pathbreaking.

02 December, 2007 17:22  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home