Richter, started forming Atlas shortly after fleeing Communism in East Germany, and Buchloh suggests that this may be the reason that much of the first few "blocks" of Atlas are landscapes and family pictures. He considers that Richter may have been trying to save his memories of the land he was leaving, of the people he was leaving behind. The question here, I suppose, is whether or not this compromises their legitimacy. Is an archive of value if it is more or less a man's scrapbook? If you say yes, then are all scrapbooks archives of artistic value?
If no, then is Benjamin a true artist? When speaking of the archives he said "I have nothing to say, only to show." I think this question would be answered with a resounding yes, but that leads us to the conclusion that the art is not in compiling a mass amount of information, but how it is presented. Benjamin's talent can be seen in his writing, but where do we see the artistic strengths of Richter. Yes, many of the pictures in Atlas became subjects for Richter's painting, but, it's hard to say there is not also talent in the creation of Atlas. Organization is where this talent can be seen. Twenty people could be given a pile of photographs, but it is which one's they choose and how they present them that separates true artists from just catalogers.
More on this article to come, but for now here is the link to the online copy of the article and a photograph that shows part of Atlas.
No comments:
Post a Comment