Jeff Wall Response

It seems that our discussions around lying have made me extremely suspicious. Before the end of the first page of this reading, I was questioning the truth in Wall's work. I feel a little odd questioning a successful, well-established photographer (if that's what he really is), but I couldn't help it. As soon as I read that he "sees something extraordinary" and then "goes back to his studio and sets about recreating the moment," I immediately thought, lies, lies, lies!

Here is a man who, like a film director, is informed of a story and then recreates it into movie set. After reading on, I am still hung up on that being a lie on the most basic level. I've seen Wall's work before and I can't remember being told that it was a set (maybe I skimmed over the captions too quickly). To show an image of a place and lead viewers to believe that it is a live shot is deceiving. This writer goes on to say that Wall uses actors, who actually rehearse the scenes. To me, this would allow the image to lose it's authenticity.

When I look at a street shot, Joel Meyerowitz for example, there is value in knowing that the photographer found and captured interesting aspects of reality. Also simply knowing that he had to have the confidence to roam the streets with his camera and get in people's faces is invaluable. He, like many others overcame the major challenge of photographing strangers in a public setting.

I am not trying to knock the extended periods of time that Wall spends on his sets because I do find that impressive, but it is a different kind of photography just like this article begins to say. I did however find myself getting a little defensive of the medium when I read, "you could say he has introduced struggle to what might have been an easy, too-accessible artform."