NY Times Andy Grundberg Assignment

Looking back through the work Andy Grundberg has done for the New York Times I found an interesting photography review on a gallery displayed in Penn Station.  Grundbergs article is titled, "Review Photography; Amid Train Data, Images Of Danger and Intrigue" published August 17, 1990. 

Here is a link to the article. 

Grundberg begins by commenting on the area that the gallery was displayed.  If not displaying photos in a museum or an enclosed gallery, a photographer’s display area is by all means part of the resonance of the photo.  Grundberg’s approaches this gallery hesitantly making it known that the gallery is in a public setting, which can sometimes make publicly provocative, but also can lead sensory assault, quoting Richard Serra’s “Tilted Arc.”  [insert photo here]

Eileen Cowins photos appeared at the Long Island Rail Road concourse in Penn Station in light boxes.  The arrangement of photos in a gallery is important to the consumption of its aura, and the first photos available for viewing in this gallery were hindered by the “rush of humanity” on escalators and train information screens all around them.  The Art for Transit Office of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said the art was meant to “stimulate the imaginations of its 150,000 commuters” but the multi-colored screens all around the photos and the fact that the gallery was done in black in white caused the photos to gain little attention according to Grundberg.      

Eileen Cowin is the photographer analyzed in this article and Grundberg complements her work greatly.  Citing the black and white photos as mysterious and intriguing, “creating a climate of implied danger, sexual intrigue and violence”, Grundberg goes on to explore the inconclusive narrative found in her photos.  He describes her photos as film noir capturing a inconclusive narrative, “Clues abound: an open envelope, a telephone receiver, a stalking guard dog. In one image, a man wearing a wedding ring uses a pay telephone. In another, a woman's shadow appears on a wall behind a phone - whether it is the same phone or another is purposefully left unclear.”

The review seemed to be thoroughly layed out starting with setting of the gallery as a critical point of analysis. The way a photograph or piece of art is viewed by its audience is integrally important to the message of the gallery.  From Grundbergs review this gallery feels like it could have benefitted from repositioning in the same public area or might have worked better in an enclosed gallery, perhaps with black walls to border the art work and highlight the grey details. 

Grundbergs review of Ms.Cowins photos however have caused me to become immediately interested in film noir and I might be going to pick up a copy of The Maltese Falcon (1941) or Sunset Blvd (1950). The narrative nature of Cowins pictures and the clues and details that carry over from photograph to photograph convey the mastery that she has in putting together a ecosystem of mystery without any clear links.       

In some of Eileen Cowins other work from the 90’s we see this inconclusive narrative structure brought up again. In the picture above the audience is drawn in by the meaning of the sentence below to the images above.  The narrative of the photos is not clear, however the itchy, hate feeling of being lied to is conveyed by the detail of all the photo's.  

 The photo of the woman opening the phone booth into the mans sensory path leads to a the question of how the two should be associated.  Some form of broken communication without sight is alluded, leaving the photo open to interpretation.  

Of the photo's presented this one puts together a stronger narrative but still leaves us starving for the final details.  The written text alludes to a crime committed by a man involving at least one woman and a series of witnesses.  The photo of the woman is solid and has some smoky depth. For some strange these two images together makes me crave for more information about her and this crime.