Photography in San Francisco

Photography in San Francisco
by Claudia Castaneda

Three photographers, two exhibits, two biographies, two vastly different approaches, The retrospective exhibits of works by Annie Liebovitz and Gilbert & George, held at the Legion of Honor and de Young Museum respectively, are biographies in which the line between art and artist is hard to distinguish.

Annie Liebovitz: A Photographer's Life 1990-2005

The images on the walls of the special exhibition at the Legion of Honor span 15 years of Liebovitz's professional life, as well as her personal life. Many may recall the image of a pregnant Demi Moore on the cover of Vanity Fair as well as other award-winning photographs, in which Leibovitz artistically captured the icons of yesterday and today's popular culture.

The exhibit is a visual biography, in which we are allowed to see the world surrounding the artist, both her professional and private world. Mixed within images of popular culture, hang images of Leibovitz's family and friends, mostly done in black and white. One image stands out, a black and white image of her mother who stands in front of a landscape unsmiling and natural. The image is one of truth, of a captured moment in which we are allowed to see the relationship between artist and subject, between mother and child.

Of the images in color depicting today's celebrities, the December 2001 picture in the White House’s Cabinet Room featuring President George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld is comical in that the image looks as though it belongs on the cover of one of today's popular drama series on TV. As stated by a fellow visitor: "It's like they're just characters that play the people who run our country. Scary huh?"
"I don't have two lives," Leibovitz writes. "This is one life, and the personal pictures and the assignment work are all part of it."

A SHOW TO EXPERIENCE

SFGate Review

Gilbert & George

"Art for All," although this may be the motto of Gilbert & George, I'm sure that many people would argue otherwise. I'll admit that at my first viewing of the retrospective at the de Young Museum, I wasn't sure that Gilbert & George's art was for me at all. But then I realized it was only because I didn't understand it. Large-scale naked images of the artists juxtapose with fecal matter, microscopic cross sections of male anatomy, and splashed with bright bold colors. The first thing I thought was, "Psychedelic 70s and Austin Powers." With more than 50 pictures, from 1971 to the present, the exhibit "traces the stylistic the stylistic and emotional development of the artists."

After coming to terms with my ignorance, I listened to a nearby docent as she explained the history of these two iconic artists who put themselves at the center of their artwork and identify themselves as "living sculptures." And then I started to understand. The show is not provocative as it is subversive. Once you accept the otherwise offensive and provocative subject matter, you can see that there is more substance in the compositions than naked men, crap, religious imagery, and microscopic organisms.

My favorite work, now that I've had two days to digest, was the monumental "Shitty Naked Human World," a four-panel work spanning the majority of the wall in the main room. Although usage of fecal matter in the art isn't appealing to me, I have to admire the artists' way of making me realize the message of shame and vulnerability and humanness found in their work and in them.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about Gilbert & George's more recent work, such as "Shitty Naked Human World" or the image depicting a mouth and anus in grotesque magnification. But, I do wish I had taken a closer look at their older work, like that taken during their drunken-pub phase. Perhaps I'll head back next week, after all I do have until May 18th.

"ART FOR ALL" (Except maybe Grandma Josephine, those easily offended, and people who don't wish to think about what they see).

On The De Young

The first time I visited the museum I didn't pay close attention to the structure of the museum. But after spending an entire day viewing art in San Francisco this past Saturday I came to realize that the De Young hangs art, it does not display it. This may seem like a strong indictment, but the way in which the permanent galleries are arranged is complicated and confusing. In way, walking around the De Young is like a box of chocolates, you just never know what you're going to get.

Perhaps my confusion is was due to lack of sleep the night before (can we say camping?) or the sensory overload I was experiencing from the colorful Gilbert & George Exhibit, but it seems as though the museum's rhyme and reason to organizing works (namely by collection rather than style or era) and the way in which the rooms flow into one another it's hard to distinguish where one is leaving and one is going. The only room in the entire second floor of the museum in which I knew exactly what I'm was looking at was the trompe-l'œil room. and solely for the amazing image of a dead swan strategically placed to draw the eye and subsequently the viewer (it was the only time I had a sense of curatorial influence). It was as though the way in which everything was offered to the visitor was far to overwhelming to digest.