MGA Roger Ballen, Art?

Roger Ballen was born in New York City, New York, USA in 1950. He has lived in Johannesburg South Africa since the 1970s. Beginning by documenting the small dorps or villages of rural South Africa, Ballen’s photography moved on in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s to their inhabitants; through the late 1990’s Ballen’s work progressed. By the mid 1990’s his subjects began to act where previously his pictures, however troubling, fell firmly into the category of documentary photography, his work then moved into the realms of fiction. His fifth book ‘Outland’ produced by Phaidon Press in 2001 was the result.

Awards:
* Art Directors Club Award Photography - 2006
* Selma Blair Witch Project - New York Times Magazine, October 31 2005
* Top 10 Exhibition, Matthew Higgs, Artforum-2004
* Citigroup Prize, finalist, UK - 2002
* Photographer of the Year,Rencontres d’ Arles - 2002
* Top 10 Exhibition, Vince Aletti, Artforum - 2002
* PhotoEspana, Best Photographic Book of the Year, Spain - 2001
* Photo-eye, Best Documentary Title, Best Photography Books of 2001
* Sani Festival, Best Solo Exhibition, Greece, 2000
* Special mention: UNICEF Photo of the Year 2001

BRUTAL TENDER
HUMAN ANIMAL

Mga
Roger Ballen
4th Sept to 1st Nov

This exhibition was work from 1983-2006, it was aiming to showed “what it means to be human, driven by fitful and forces barley understood” as the plaque on the entry of the gallery also when onto say that “it goes from documenting the world outside to documenting the imaginary world with in”.... hmmm??

The comment was made at this exhibition that “art doesn’t have to be beautiful” - if then art is not beautiful, then what is it??

The meaning of the word art:
“Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics.”
- Definition form From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word “Documentary”, would be a good word to describe this work/exhibition. The above definition does not suit the exhibition that we saw. This does not mean that we shouldn’t have gone to it, or that I think that it shouldn’t have been exhibited in this space.

My issue or “miss understanding” of Rogers Work does not lie in the first room of this exhibition however it does in the second room. I’m all for art being confronting, however I have quite the opposite opinion when it is ugly or disturbing - regardless how interesting or composition-ally impressive it may be. Art should not be something you walk away from feeling depressed or powerless, Art should leave you with a feeling of appreciation for your surroundings. In that art and composition can be seen in everyday life, it is just a chosen perception, appreciation and most importantly awareness of this that could possibly change your mood, encourage your creativity and of course put a smile on your face.

I respect Rogers ability and creativity. The quality of execution and competition in his work is of an impressive standard. However it’s content and subject matter (in the second room) was not to appealing to my creative pallet what so ever. But hey that’s “art” for you isn’t it what I like won’t be what you like will it?