Critique Welcomed A Funky Little Local Art Gallery ...

[Keith Hollister]

Visited a rather unique (in architecture, not exhibits) art gallery here locally this morning. Been meaning to get over there for a while, but finally made it. It is a sprawling interconnected maze of small buildings in a rather interesting fusion of styles and it is a bit dodgy on the outside (which makes it all the more interesting). X-E2 with the 14 & 23 mostly. Enjoy ...

#1 - Sunflower Gate


#2 - Untitled


#3 - Door Number 3 (from the US TV show Let's Make A Deal)


#4 - Untitled


#5 - Untitled


#6 - Gallery

 

[Pete Askew]

What an interesting place Keith. Were the works for sale?

I do like those 2 middle B&W shots and the shadows in the 5th are great. The pattern they cast is almost like the pattern in the tiles around the door. Nice. And that shot of the floor and gallery space is extremely nice. Great geometry.

 

[Keith Hollister]

Thanks, Pete. It is indeed a very quirky place

The works were not for sale. The main gallery (last photo) had some very unique pieces that the artist called "Constructed Landscapes". They were photos or paintings that were assembled from small random "tiles". In the case of the photographic based ones, he appeared to make several duplicate prints and cut all but one up into small pieces and then fasten them on top of the whole one in more or less the correct locations. It gave a somewhat 3D impression that also sort of "ghosted" the original image. A photographer friend who was there with me commented that it was almost as if one of the Impressionistic painters had used photography instead of oils. Really interesting (and I might try it myself).

Several folks elsewhere have commented on the gallery shot, which somewhat surprised me (since most folks seem to respond to the subject of an image more than other aesthetic elements). I think the rather unusual geometry of the room (long & narrow), the contrasting wall colors (light on the left, dark on the right), the floor pattern (brought out by fiddling with the spectral response in the B&W conversion) and the empty oriental style table at the end as a focal point are what turn a photo of a room into something a lot more interesting. I also used some processing to get a subtle glow going to emphasize the lighting.

I have another one from here that I will post as soon as I tweak the processing a bit, but the gallery shot and #4 are my favorites by far.

I foresee several return trips to further explore

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I'm loving the final gallery shot - the perspective lead-in with the wooden floor, the lighting on the art - really nice

They were ok with you taking shots inside?

 

[Beth Carter]

some great photos, but it's the last one for me. love the b&w tones and the comp.

 

[Keith Hollister]

I'm loving the final gallery shot - the perspective lead-in with the wooden floor, the lighting on the art - really nice

They were ok with you taking shots inside?

Thanks. They didn't seem to care if we took photos - there was certainly no sign to the contrary.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I love 'No Photography' signs - I take photos of them!

 

[Keith Hollister]

<Off Topic Rambling> I am often puzzled at the motivation for the "No Photography" thing. I was taking a tour of an historic home up in Georgia a year or two ago and the guide informed me I couldn't take any photos inside the home. The puzzling thing was that there wasn't a giftshop selling photos or books of the interior architecture or furnishings - I for the life of me couldn't figure out what the trust was monetizing that they thought a photographer would impact. The only thing I could theorize was that they were afraid that if someone published a photo tour of the inside of the house that it might reduce ticket sales because people would figure they didn't need to see it in person. That was pretty faulty reasoning however since the admission was for the entire estate and gardens, and the only place photos were forbidden was inside the main house.

Of course the guide didn't have a clue and got pissed at me for daring to question the reason.

Interesting observation, though - the home was the primary residence of the family up until the death of the wife about 15-20 years ago if I recall correctly. The interior had been largely left "as is" to convey the lived in state. I though 2 things were quite remarkable ...

• The kitchen hadn't been remodeled since the 40/50's, yet it was a working kitchen for a wealthy household
• Aside from a couple small (19") TV's in the children's bedrooms, there wasn't a single TV or even stereo system in the house. It would seem the family lived without any electronic media (music or video) in the main living spaces. It seemed to be 100 years out of place. I questioned the guide about it and she confirmed that nothing like that had been removed as far as she knew.

This is the back garden of the place, BTW ...

 

[Pete Askew]

Nice looking place. I guess the staff worked in the kitchen!

I suspect with some places it is people holding up a tour or intruding into the view / enjoyment of others that prompts a ban on photography especially now that people prefer to view the world through their phones. Still, like you, I am often mystified by the reasons.