Gothamist: Richard Sandler Documents New York

Hellverlaine

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 03:30:02 -0500

@SP Whose reactions to art aren't influenced by emotional determinants? Some critiques might be more visceral and psychological projective then others but that's not an indicator of their validity; it's all a matter of degree. More to the point, a purely aesthetic sensibility -- only a theoretical possibility -- would be robotic and uninteresting. I think it's pretty obvious to most of us here that you're the one politicizing (on however a petty level), and that's why everyone is getting pissed.

TSOL

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:04:14 -0500

The WTC was a brutalist monument to bad taste.

Jen Chung

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:45:38 -0500

I was just struck by how the one WTC tower was captured in between buildings. And yes, given what's happened, I am projecting those feelings onto that image--it becomes sentimental and carries a different kind of weight. I also happen to love the Grand Central photograph-- the light in there is can be very beautiful in its diffused way.

Barbj8

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:48:14 -0500

Haunting or not, all of these pictures have historical significance. History books contain significant moments in the progress of the world, but seldom is mentioned the little things in society--the graffiti on the train, the people on the streets, the window dressing of life for the ordinary human being.

dr zippy

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:18:05 -0500

Jeez, SP, could you be more of a dick? The photo has no emotional or haunting qualities to me, and I'm not impressed with Sandler's work, but that doesn't negate the fact that other's may find emotional resonance in the photographs.

SP

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:57:19 -0500

If the WTC hadn't been blown the fuck up, no one would look at that picture and think it was haunting. That's the point. The picture isn't haunting, it's your heads that are haunted. Any reference to the WTC will make you feel that way, even if it was a WTC made of unicorns and lollipops. So yeah, when someone says that picture is haunting, it's not quite valid as an aesthetic reaction. It's a psychological reaction to events that had nothing to do with the photo as a work of art.

The Edge

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:37:18 -0500

I like that RR Train shot. Momma just slapped all three kids at once. Nice!

moominpapa

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:24:53 -0500

@Ph, SP My aesthetic reaction to that picture is more inherently valid than yours...

Ph

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:21:47 -0500

The WTC was an ugly fucking abortion of architecture. That plaza was so souless and harsh. So...devoid. But whatever, can't say that, people may start crying.

jaw2389

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:59:54 -0500

I don't necessarily agree that the WTC photo offers a "haunting perspective," but I must say that readers are well within their right to remark based on a purely emotive or personal level. I don't see anything political about that comment, nor do I feel it was "attributing some sort of imagined prescience to the photographer." The point of having a "Comment" section is so readers may add their personal reaction to articles, not to chide others for expressing themselves...though I guess that's what this post is, huh?

SP

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:20:11 -0500

What's so haunting about it? The image is a composition of textures and patterns. The only psychological effect I get from it is one of claustrophobia from the tightness of the space between the two walls. I think you are projecting your own WTC feelings into this. It's sad that people can't look at pictures of the WTC without immediately politicizing and/or emoting over them in one way or another, or attributing some sort of imagined prescience to the photographer.

Jen Chung

Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:00:34 -0500

That's a haunting perspective of the WTC.