Land+Living: Ashes and Snow, Smoke and Mirrors...

Ashes and Snow, Smoke and Mirrors...
Category: Commentary
Posted by: Nico on 2/21/2006 10:38:00 AM | Digg | Stumble It! | del.icio.us
Don't judge a book by its cover...
© Gregory Colbert

© Gregory Colbert

Gregory Colbert’s photography and motion picture exhibit “Ashes and Snow” opened about a month ago along the Santa Monica Pier. It is housed in a rather extravagant temporary structure designed by Shigeru Ban, in which it will be traveling the world. The stacked shipping containers, the 30’ high cardboard columns, and the exquisite lighting of the space and the art all come together to create a cathedral-like space and striking experience. The visitor is lead over a wooden deck in the center of the structure, while the walls and ceiling are dipped into darkness due to the careful lighting design. The prints appear to hover between the evenly spaced columns, which makes for a beautiful procession.

Ban’s work with recyclable and reusable materials has fascinated me for many years, and this project does not fall short by any means. As for the photography and the films that are displayed inside… that is a different story.

Link: Ashes_and_Snow
Link: Shigeru_Ban
Ashes and Snow Images ©Gregory Colbert *

INTERIOR VIEW OF THE NOMADIC MUSEUM

© Ashes and Snow

© Ashes and Snow

Some of the sepia-toned images, which are printed on Japanese handmade paper, are quite impressive and captivating to the eye. A man swimming under an elephant, or a beautiful woman dancing in a temple as a falcon flies over her head are beautiful eye candy. Then you start looking a little closer and start listening to the omnipresent readings of the artist’s journal, and a different picture emerges.

I have yet to see a more narcissistic and self-glorifying piece of art that is so vacuous of meaning and so banal. The logorrhea projected from speakers all over is mind numbing, and the photography is far more Anne Geddes than Annie Leibovitz.

In exploring the shared language and poetic sensibilities of all animals, I am working towards rediscovering the common ground that once existed when people lived in harmony with animals. The images depict a world that is without beginning or end, here or there, past or present.
- Gregory Colbert

The hubris on display in this statement is a common thread throughout this artist’s work. He speaks of common ground between people and animals, of living in peace and harmony together, apparently with our eyes closed (all human subjects have their eyes closed in the most outrageous situations…). He appears to mistakenly identify a kitschy gimmick as a portrayal of spirituality, a biblical plagiarism if you will. Mr. Colbert has apparently never heard the statement that "the eyes are the windows to the soul."

© Gregory Colbert

Image via Ashes and Snow, © Gregory Colbert *

He also seems to have never really dealt with animals, read any books about natural animal behavior, or watched any National Geographic specials, since he does not seem to be aware of the fact that nature is anything but a peaceful place of coexistence. The animals on display are, with the exceptions of the whales and the hyenas (the most tasteless and disturbing part of this exhibit), domesticated and trained. Thus I do not see a peaceful coexistence while looking at his imagery, but a glorified circus act that pretends to be Zen. Every image appears so carefully orchestrated and produced, that the concept of “nature” really does not factor into the equation at all (again, with the exception of the undomesticated animals featured, which are few, and unfortunately not ferocious enough to take a bite out of the artist, who continually features HIMSELF in his frames).

"Production" really describes this exhibit accurately in most ways. My deep respect for Shigeru Ban’s work is not affected by any means, but it saddens me to see a proverbial "snake oil vendor" like Gregory Colbert raise millions of dollars (he even brags about there not being a budget or a deadline in one interview… “How can you make a budget for underwater sequences with elephants in the ocean?”) from corporations like Rolex and private donors, while other much more deserving artists have to flip burgers to buy supplies. It is also a shame that Colbert is supported by the Flying Elephants Foundation, which has a rich tradition of awarding fellowships to exceptional artists like James Turrell and Zana Briski. Nobody in the astronomically expensive, but nicely designed gift shop was able to tell me what percentage of the price of the products was actually going towards the foundation...

The exhibit is on display alongside the Santa Monica pier until May 14th, 2006, and it is worth seeing, even if potentially for the architecture alone. Oh, and the elephant swimming with Greg diving under it... great shot! I wonder who took it?

EXTERIOR VIEW OF THE NOMADIC MUSEUM AT SANTA MONICA

© Ashes and Snow

© Ashes and Snow

*The doctrine of fair use means that copying will not infringe a copyright when it is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research."

yuk!
Posted by help desk on 2/21/2006 4:59:00 PM

-a very acurate post. flipping straight to the image link, without reading the post. led there largely by the promise of some light filled structure by ban. i was, well-gobsmacked. there is a new top of the heap in the pantheon of contrived, sentimental, over supported "fine art". at least wegmann seems happy to just be sentimental, and you know where he is coming from.
this also rings of the corporate inspiration school. maybe because of the sepia coloring i can't help being reminded of the whole captain shackelton ray of light that swept the cubicles a few years back.
not sure that i have said anything, but i felt like i needed to say something to get the bad taste out!

Posted by dug on 2/22/2006 8:28:00 AM

i agree that it's very interesting architecture, but it seems like the eco claims are at least a little snake-oil too. in nyc, those shipping containers, although sourced locally still make quite an energy consuming trek to get to the pier where they're stacked with heavy machinery. and then back again. then repeated for each location. seems like a waste when there are dozens of great museums within a couple miles already built. and wasn't that vinyl, environmental enemy number one, covering the entire roof and side-spaces? aside from borrowed containers, just what is recycled here? decorative sono tubes? this exhibit most likely made a much larger environmental footprint than had they opted for a traditional venue. but to your point, not many museums would exhibit colbert's cheese so he was probably forced to create his own. can we say that bad art is bad for the environment?

You can purchase for just $200,00 Euros!
Posted by peakjunkie on 2/22/2006 1:28:00 PM

I contacted his reps and, received the reply that photographs, which are not even numbered or limited edition, begin at $200,000 Euros (yes, they just said "start at")

Laughable as compared to signed, numbered originals from "real" artists.

200 Euros, or 200,000 Euros?
Posted by marketekt on 2/23/2006 12:01:00 PM

I am guessing the latter?

what a ripoff
Posted by msmeta on 2/28/2006 11:16:00 AM

wow - i've never felt as ripped off by an "art" exhibit in my entire life. basically as slick and shallow as a pretty Nike ad, with a bunch of faux "spirituality" sprinkled on top. the building is beautiful, though. (oh, did i mention it costs an outrageous $15?!)

The Gates in LA
Posted by Jon Read on 3/7/2006 9:17:00 AM

Wow, and we New Yorkers are accused of being jaded! When THE GATES were up in Central Park the comon refrain was, "Do you know how much good they could have done with $36 million? It's a disgrace for that selfish, narcissistic Cristo to waste it on a bunch of orange gates when people are starving.!" And I would respond, "Oh, really. So, tell me: What are YOU doing to help the starving. Better yet, what in god''s name are YOU creating?" I saw Ashes and Snow in NYC, and although I get some of what the posts immediately above mine are saying, i want to scream at their writers: "Can't you see beyond your own criticism and pull from the images the meanings, the potentials, the myriad things with which they are damn near bursting? All you can cull from those remarkable images are your nasty comments? Have you ever heard the axiom: 'We do not see the world the way IT is; we see the world the way WE are'?'" My heart nearly stopped when I saw a couple of those prints. They had meaning to me beyond who Colbert is. They made me think of what we are doing to the planet, what we have lost, will lose, and what we may still save; they made me wonder and imagine and hope and long for something greater. I had an absolutely enormous experience as i walked through that show. Transformative. Am I a pushover, am I simple minded, am I uneducated and easily suckered by bad art? No. In fact, I've studied art, I suspect my IQ outranks yours, you jaded LA poo-poo-ers; and as far as the snarky, not impressed attitued... believe me, my road through this incarnation, more than likely, has been rougher than yours --the book will come out soon (if that damn James Frey hasn't blown the menoir market for us all)-- so save your arguing for later, and I saw a great deal that was of signifigant value in the show. I don't mean for my coments to sound nasty or mean spirited; it's just that... this Colbert guy may be an ass... I don't know, i've never met him. Some of the animals may be tamed... i don't know, i never met them. Some of the pictures (like the one of him swimming with the elephant the guy in a message above mine mentioned snarkilly [how's that for a word?])may have been taken by another person or by a timer... i don't know, i wasn't there, and photographers nearly always have assistants by the way. What I do know is THE IMAGES WORK.
jon read

Sometimes....
Posted by Alyson Moore on 3/20/2006 1:45:00 PM

Sometimes you just need to take things in emotionally not literally. I was mesmorized by the whole effect. I thought it was beautiful and engaging. The fact that so many of you had a strong reaction says something. And as for the price I thought $15 was a bargin! Not only did you get the photographs, film and music, but the architecture of the Museum was facinating. For those of you who didn't care for it, I'll tell you what I'll tell my mother when she doesn't like something, "It's not for you."

MAYBE LATER
Posted by WALTER MCNEALY on 3/20/2006 3:45:00 PM

I WAS going to see the show (my son saw it and +/- liked it), but after reading some of the commentary from people who have seen it, I'll save my $.

Heads and Hearts
Posted by Valerie D. on 3/20/2006 6:28:00 PM

It was amuzingly shocking to read the negative comments of the "talking heads" above. Indeed, that's what "heads" do: talk (usually a rather nasal sound/ higher pitch/ faster rythm), compare, measure and judge. Since their judgement is based on the content of their morals, they tend to reject on the outside whatever qualities lay in the shadows within.
A heart, however, feels, weighs and discerns. Big difference. And crucial here! You have to have "seen" and "heard" beyond the veil to receive the vision of Gregory Colbert.
And maybe he didn't even mean it that way! Maybe he was, at the right point of space and time, the right vehicle for something that is beginning to be said to our very time.
So to put all of us into agreement I'll say this: it is like nothing else. For that very matter, don't take into account what anyone has to say about it and just go find out for yourself.

I will go
Posted by C Vanchieri on 3/23/2006 8:51:00 AM

I will go to see with my own eyes the beauty I believe lies within this creation. How many opportunities do we have to even say that?

If You're Really up for a dialogue...
Posted by por_paz on 3/27/2006 2:53:00 PM

First of all...I will state that I do agree with the first handful of critical reviews at the top of this page. I went to see the Ashes and Snow exhibit a few days ago and during my visit and when i left, I just FELT an uneasiness about the entire exhibit.

I am an art-maker myself - a feminist - and also a community organizer. I share this tidbit about myself because some of the later comments above seem to dismiss some of the critical views that were expressed above and some even went so far as saying you must feel the emotion of the artwork, not just the literalness of it.

As artists - we are charged with being cultural reproducers and shapers - putting out work and ideas that drive conversation, comment, antagonize, challenge, etc. But this role - which art-makers - work in - does not go unchallenged and without self-reflection and social responsibility (yes, ethics does exist folks).

I think that the artist, Colbert, chooses a very ambition exhibition not just for it's theme but for its scale as well as his ssertion for a vision of humanity he hopes the viewers will embrace or consider. I get that. But what I find sickening is his overwhelming narcissism - his white man's gaze on the "other" (meaning, brown-skinned children, women, and and older person) as inactive objects in that gaze, colbert's self glorification and male masturbation in the underwater scene with a woman implying foreplay. it is a grandiose spectacle that tries to elevate the artist.

I was appalled by the cost of the show being $15. But to be engaged in dialogue about the art, I went, and saw. The architecture was very interesting, however I agree that the total amount of energy to setup the space and organize the exhibit might've been a poor choice from a cost-effective and environmentally friendly perspective.

I can see how people can be touched by the sepia-toned images, but it reminded me of perfectly posed shots for big-brand advertisements or images used to perpetuate "othering."

It's interesting that the exhibit boasts of contrinuting some proceeds to a cause, however, they are secretive about exactly how.

I would still recommend that people see the work - it's there. But also think about the work like any other - critically - ask questions about the exhibit, the space, the artists' background, the artist's intentions, the funders of the exhibit, who really is benefitting from the exhibit, and what and how much has really been to do positive that address the root causes of man's destructiveness over other species.

Colbert seems to have not even resolved his own destructivenss as a white man imposing his gaze on the "other" as well as working out the cost-effectiveness of teh exhibit to serve a higher purpose. And because he does not, while he tries to raise people to a level of deep understanding, he contradicts himself and participates in self-fatuation and irreverance.

Sour Grapes
Posted by Charmaine Heyer on 3/31/2006 7:43:00 PM

One word that comes to mind to all of Gregory Colbert's knockers is JEALOUSY on all levels.
The images that I have seen on his site are just AMAZING.
Do I care about all the processes that have happened to get to the end result - NO. I love what I see and
more importantly how it has touched my heart. His images do make me feel more about our close relationship with animals, and how much they are like us. This has to be good for society.
How could anyone complain about $15.00 entry fee - what a joke, I would pay $1000.00 to see his exhibition. ( regardless of what donations go to the elephants).
WELL DONE.

Ethology and imposition
Posted by Carson Barnes on 4/2/2006 9:40:00 PM

The most perceptive person I've met in 50 years and I went to see this exhibition today. We were predisposed to affinity; as we examined the admittedly seductive images in the moody lighting and aggressively "spiritual" soundtrack, our sense of dismay became overwhelming. This was the cheapest, most insidious anthropomorphizing of animal behavior I've seen, a multi ring circus of "what you can get animals to do". Spirituality was signed by slow motion, by crossed hands - I saw Tutankhamen's sarcophagus cover when I was eight years old, alright already! - and closed eyes imitating serenity. But looking closer the cats just wanted to get off the boat, and finally leaped into the water as a last resort; the cheetahs were tame and not interacting with the prop humans (thin, puffy lipped clear skinned examples of natives who just happen to resemble fashion model ideals) - simply being in the same frame is not the same as relating; the African wild dog (not a hyena) did look ready to eat the humans, which would have been refreshing by that late point in the exhibition. Reading to the animals looks cool enough until we think about the imposition of literature between gods and (wo)men, between human beings, let alone between a human and another species of animal, and we think about the book as the narrowing mediator of spiritual experience, the leveler at a socially acceptable, rather mild degree of exchange.

We were ultimately disgusted. We both know well how consciously to open the heart center and view the world from it, and the visuals enticed us to do so but then delivered a vacuous message, a betrayal. Colbert does seem to have figured out how to manipulate a system that caters to dewy eyed preadolescents of all ages, and so may have an impact on the direction of culture, so huzzah for manipulation. This, again, is what you can get people to do - rather than what they might do naturally, which latter view would be ethological.

-
Posted by hoi polloi on 4/5/2006 7:23:00 PM

You would pay $1000 because you have $1000... and maybe because rather than actually going to experience the life that Mr. Colbert depicts - however facing one true reality of that cat actually clawing and eating you - is something that you might not actually do, if that actual offer came up. $15 is steep for my people who make only $6.75 per hour to slave in your capitalist system which destroyed natural environments, reaped havoc on indigenous people and the animals that inhabited the land....only to be forced to seek a "sa