He said that his work first began as an autobiography which I think some might argue his work continues to be. Overall, what stood out the most to me was the familiarity of his work to a graduate student in our program who's work I'm familiar with. Both shoot deadpan images but these images still have some sort of strange interest and that interest is usually the lighting. Ulrich's lighting in particular is surreal. He compared the images to Dutch paintings, which I agree with (although I disagree his portraits resemble them, just his locations). I included an example below. They seem ordinary, yet there is something spectacular about them in the light.
I felt relieved in the fact about his description on how he works. He didn't necessarily jump from project to project but worked on one and when he felt it couldn't go any further, started another, which he would outwardly admit he did or didn't like.
Overall, I felt his work had a common denominator, which I hope he wouldn't find offensive. The common characteristic was of course, the humor. Ulrich has a way with words. I was completely engrossed in his lecture because he wasn't afraid to poke fun at himself and his work, which is a lovely change from normal. To be honest, looking at his work, you might not (at first) think that the author is comical. Upon closer investigation however, you begin to notice that he presents everyday, ordinary scenes but yet pokes fun at them. Not in a kitschy way, but mature and very stylized.
Painting Saint Jerome in his study
0 comments:
Post a Comment