>>4476917>>4476946Oh not at all. Burtynsky's grift is making technically competent photos in privileged places that people like us don't have access to. That's it. Any decent artist of the now century-old modernist tradition would make photos like his in those situations. Sure they are beautiful. But the obvious criticism (which was fatal to the new topographics movement 50 years ago) is why are you aestheticizing something you claim to hate? It's a derangement made even more painful by directly spelling out the environmentalist intent like he does. A clownworld Ansel Adams.
Gursky is also guilty of exploiting access for shock value, but seems to understand he's made a deal with the devil given the conceptual depth of his images. Not being so concerned with seeming formally clever allows him confront deeper cultural aspects of the spectacle. Essentially Gursky depicts the disease, not merely the symptoms.
