Sunday, August 5, 2007

Sweet: Candy at the Sugarbowl, Super Photo Friends, Sugarbowl Cafe (southside)

Another "candy" exhibit this summer season, the semi-new Super Photo Friends (comprised of 3Ten photographers Eugene Uhuad and Aaron Pederson, Eric Duffy, Dallas Whitley and Ted Kerr) appears to have given themselves the assignment of representing "sweet" as best they can in 2D gloss.
The result was nothing exceptional; lollipops and cotton candy, "sweet" as an emotive adjective or awed expression, most literally represented, the idea of "sweet" as a group exercise was perhaps more interesting than the results themselves.
The "why" of the exercise is evident, but the inspiration behind the theme could hopefully be better communicated at the next Super Photo Friends show.


superphoto said...

Hi Amy,

Joe Banh is also a Super Photo Friend.

Although I appreciate your review I have to say that I think that you missed a chance to investigate the images further.

Each pair of work is an investigation into our personal current worldview using candy as the common “lens”.

Dallas's look into consumerism and the environment as seen by his reconfiguring of how we view the "natural” world is worth a second look,

as is Eric's look into immediate gratification.

Joe’s work is his honest review of life in Alberta as he prepares to leave.

My work is about crave and denial.

Eugene and Aaron through their work, prove that they are 2 of the most underused commercial photographers in the city.

Together, we present an opportunity for people to either enjoy the sugary images as they enjoy the privilege of eating out or take the opportunity to look at our work and have it act as a catalyst for their own investigation into this so-called sweet western modern life.

I recommend taking a 2nd look.


Tam said...

I recommend taking a 2nd look too. I though this show was tasty - even made me order dessert.

af said...

hey, I took a second look today as so collectively suggested, and my original opinion stands.

I think this is an interesting group exercise, but to be perfectly honest, I didn't feel the exercise as a whole was investigated enough.

My question is: why does an exercise have to lead to an exhibition? I think this group could really push this theme, any theme, into something great, but I'm afraid I didn't see anthing this time.

Anonymous said...

That is cool that you took a second look.

I totally disagree with you that the work is not investigated but think that possibly we are looking at Sweet with very different perspectives.

It seems to me that you are viewing the work as a whole, where as we think of it as being made up of parts.

When the show is viewed as parts, then seen collectively, one is able to see many interesting things.

For one, we all use our camera differently, exposing our personal definitions of what it is to be a photographer- thus giving context to our interpretations of the theme.

I used my camera in a non-traditional way to express my queer desires.

Joe, who is looking at Alberta from an evaluative standpoint, shot individual parts to create his collage.

For me, an exhibition is part of the exercise, a part of the process that is just a stop along the way. It is not what stands as the art. Art is continual.

I don't think Artists always have to "push" a theme- this is what results in fatigue and dishonest “splashy” art.

For me, the role of the Artist is to investage and be as honest as they can in their expression.