Risaku Suzuki "Kumano, Yuki, Sakura"
at Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography
in the Nakameguro area
This event has ended
63 people bookmarked this.
21 people recommend this.
Seeing Risaku Suzuki’s “Kumano, Yuki, Sakura” is a truly visceral experience. With the exhibition divided into three parts, you are first treated to photographs of forests and waterfalls in Kumano, lit up on panels and displayed in a black room, the light emitted from the photographs silently glowing and sucking in your gaze. Next, black and red photographs of men gathered around a fire during a “shinji” (Shinto ceremony), and pictures of (what looks like) snow falling from the sky adorn a small corridor which gradually takes you from darkness into light as you walk closer to the next room. The final room is almost completely white, with photographs of snow and white cherry blossom trees mounted on white walls.
The effects of colour and lighting in the three sections force you to interact on a deeper sensory level beyond visual perception. The photos of green forests and waterfalls enwrap the viewer in the tranquilities of mother nature in the first black room. Yet their eerie, artificial glow – like computer interfaces in the dark – simultaneously draws you into having a closer squint at the details, which look less and less “natural” the longer you look. Water running down the fountains looks like white string, and the vivid green branches seem too clean, almost digital.
Your senses are quickly jolted upon entering the corridor, as the viewer is confronted by fierce images of the rawness of human life. Men huddle around a huge fire in pitch darkness, their flesh bright red against the blaze, faces taut, as though bordering on insanity. Amidst an exhibition predominantly featuring the beauties of nature, these few photos offer a poignant contrast and are the only things close to any form of commentary that Suzuki reveals. With their intense darkness, they also serve as a brief climactic moment in the three part progression, before light slowly pours into the walkway and abstract photos of white specks on black – most probably snow falling from the sky – ease you into the visuals of the next room, which takes snow as its theme.
Stepping into the final room, you are temporarily blinded by the sheer whiteness of it all. Photos of the largely white snow mounds and white cherry blossoms interspersed on the white walls seem to overflow from their frames, filling the entire room. The sudden transition from dark to light plays tricks on your eyes, and you become consumed in the space. In contrast to the black room where the photos draw you in, these white photos explode beyond the frame, and the effect is exhilarating. The final photograph of the exhibition – the only picture in the room depicting pink cherry blossoms against blue skies – offers a sort of cathartic relief from the whiteness. The pastel pinks and blues look stunning, as if you are seeing colour for the first time in your life.
While Suzuki’s photos do not particularly stand out when seen individually, the presentation of “Kumano, Yuki, Sakura” – the separation of each series, the lighting, colour and so on – make his photographs a joy to experience. When more than often ‘important’ works by prominent artists are merely framed and placed on white walls at eye-level, this unusual and bold presentation is a welcome change, providing dynamism to what might otherwise end up being another exhibition of merely ‘pretty’ imagery.
Gary McLeod
2007-10-14
If anyone does have a chance to see this exhibition, do so. The way in which the works are presented are refreshing (especially in Japan) and he would appear to be very aware of the crisis in his chosen medium. Interestingly, I read in one of the exhibition catalogues that he was quoted as saying that he kind of didn’t want anyone to really see his pictures because the locations were so precious to him. He may have been joking but I certainly got the impression that i was not being asked to look inside the frame, but rather outside the frame and around it. This was particularly strong in the white room, where the join between the white wall and the white floor vanished in my peripheral vision when looking directly at one of the images, creating the impression that both I and the image were indeed floating. My eye seemed to jump from the image to the ‘disappearing join’ so as to almost try to ground myself again. Not only did the final image of cherry blossom come across as a cathartic relief as seeing colour for the first time but it was almost as if i was seeing a fixed image for the first time. Ironic, seeing that the image itself was of a flower not known for being permanent.
john Sebben
2007-11-23
what are you doing selling this show?
So he takes obviously pleasing and heart-string tugging subjects and then what? What does it mean? In the immortal words of Woody Allen, “I.I.I.I.. gotta have meaning… I gotta have substance..” I see a taking of common symbols and doing absolutely nothing with them. Why is he even bothering to use an 8×10″ camera? It tries too hard and then falls flat. BTW, what chrisis in photography?
Gary McLeod
2007-11-24
While I would agree that the subjects are obviously pleasing to a great number of people (who can’t appreciate the sight of a waterfall in a country which loves its concrete so much?), I would say that his use of such a ‘common’ symbol is doing the right thing. Yes, they are just common symbols (even ‘loaded’ ones in the case of cherry blossom) but its their use that has so far inspired yourself and many to ask the question “why?” Artists are not trying to deceive people, as would be the case for ‘designers’ (I use this word with full awareness of its etymology), so your reaction of questions, questions, questions is clearly one that the artist has considered and- more than likely- wished for.
As for having ’substance’, this is the exact ‘crisis’ to which I was referring. We all understand an image of a waterfall, cherry blossom or snow, yet the artist was clearly aware (very intentionally) of how an image needs to be ‘experienced’ as most people who pick up a camera are not. The exhibition was arranged in this manner to draw attention to how an image floats and this is the problem with the image in contemporary society. It is the experience of it which grounds it and with less and less use of paper to show an image in the public domain (in other words, any picture taken with any digital camera, be it keitai or otherwise) the need to understand that an image needs grounding is essential. If it is not grounded somehow, either through physicality or experience of it, madness could ensue within the individual increasing the need for what Paul Virilio termed ‘A right to blindness’ (Virlio. 1997)
But, back to Suzuki, The philosopher Vilem Flusser believed that photographers need to be aware of the system that they are using, in order to transcend it and evoke others to do the same. Suzuki’s work shows an awareness of the mechanism in place. A work of art should ask more questions than it answers, and in that respect, you would have to surely agree that his work ‘works’.
Is that what you were referring to when you meant ‘it [the work] tries to hard’?
ivy watkins
2007-11-28
Crisis of an idea? Crisis of content? are you joking? Good photography is always highly conscious of its medium and system, look at Naoya Hatakeyama do you think he thinks he is using paint? Suzuki wants a filmic construct and language but fails to enter the concept fully because the images are sucking up to the unsophisticated viewer through what ought to be thought of as beautiful or charged subjects but inherently with little meaning. I think his work utterly fails and trying to make the room a photograph? come on please. The pictures were simply gratuitously pretty, but inside the CONcepts were lacking and overwrought but end up being little more than pretty pictures along the lines of takashi homma’s trite pieces. Next you will be selling shinichiro kobayashi’s drivel.
Gary McLeod
2007-12-01
In response to the previous posting, I am interested in what you believe to be ‘good photography’ and i would also like to know who you think photography should be for? Perhaps i misunderstood your phrasing, but are you suggesting that it was wrong that the images appeased (your words: ‘are sucking up’) to what you considered to be an ‘unsophisticated viewer’?
I would like to know on what level you think his work fails, and why you believe his ‘CONcepts’ to be lacking and overwrought?
I am glad, however, you acknowledge that photographers and artists should be highly conscious of their medium and system, yet it could be said that their audience are not so accutely aware. Do you feel that pictures should relate to an audience or do you believe that they should belittle them with intellectual concepts, whereby viewers resort to the phrase ‘I don’t get it’ and don’t bother going to the museum again? There has to be a balance between the idea and the interpretations of it. Its called compromize and it is what all honest artists struggle with.
Instead of questioning or rather poorly justifying your criticism of his use of imagery, perhaps you should be considering why you believe such an image to be ‘gratuitously pretty’? what makes you feel so bored with that image that you cannot engage with it on a variety of levels as opposed to just one? If all good photographers and artists are aware of the systems and mediums that they use, perhaps you should also step back from your egocentric criticism of his chosen images and understand the system that made you say that.
ivy watkins
2007-12-17
Well today was my third time at the Tomei Shimatsu exhibition which despite curatorial foolishness and museum greed, the images were stunning not only in terms of looks but in a plethora of ideas imparted into them. Looking at the Cherry Blossoms he included not just a bucolic appreciation to looking at them, but made one piece look like they were in a pond above the viewer. Other images of the blossoms included light articulated in a manner Stephen Shore would be jealous of (day and night). Gary dont be a fool. when i go see Art i expect it to stimulate more than my kirei bones, but to engage me on a much higher level. These Suzuki pieces seem like they belong to Mika Ninagawa’s brother not a real artist who is exploring his world through photography or creating a dialogue other than a cheap fantasy. And what does you ending mean? I think you fail to grasp your theory and differentiate between navel gazing and serious philosophy. BTW why is it almost only the Tab people who comment? Why do you defend each other’s missteps? IT makes this whole thing seem pointless and incestuous.
Ashley Rawlings
2007-12-17
For the moment it’s almost only TAB writers doing all the sustained commenting because it happens to be that nobody else is (it’s not like we’re deleting other people’s comments!)
We’re trying to work on a system that will flag articles that have recently been commented on, but this may take a while. In the meantime, we’re trying to get the ball rolling with discussion, and hopefully in the longer term that will help to draw more people in. Ivy, if you have friends who are involved in the art world here, please do invite them to comment as well and help diversify these discussions.
Gary McLeod
2007-12-17
Ivy, clearly you appear to have some knowledge and experience of what you believe to be successful art work. Fair enough. If you don’t like Suzuki’s work, then I shall not be foolish in trying to persuade you otherwise. You have your opinion and i have mine.
However, on a personal note, I grow weary of people who claim that they should be challenged on a higher level when they enter a museum or gallery. It smacks of someone trying to flex their intellect because little else has done recently. Your view is your view, but to you it seems as though its the only one that matters. By all means, say you like or don’t like something and compare it to something which you believe IS good, but come down from your plateau.
Originally, you more or less accused TAB of selling this exhibition and now, us writers of incestuously backing each other up. Ironically, isn’t it odd how other writers are not backing me up here? Perhaps my mistake was to venture a positive opinion of his exhibition? Yet, it would appear that at times, discussion on TAB is generated only when someone bravely says when they think an exhibition works on a particular level. Such brave writers then become the focal point for semi-articulate attacks from disgruntled viewers, who can’t vent their frustration at the writings of ART-iT, Frieze, Modern Painters, and Metropolis.
Ivy, don’t be a fool. It’s not like I’m being paid to say these things. I ventured a positive reflection of his work because I found justification in it, yet perhaps that was my mistake?
Actaully, maybe my mistake was choosing to study and research what I write about? Maybe, I should put Vilem Flusser, Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, Geoffrey Batchen, and Paul Virilio back on the bookshelf and start stocking up the milk in Asda again. Then, at least I might have more time for my navel.
ivy watkins
2007-12-20
You got Ashley defending, and check out the other responses. If beauty is all you need then go to Kitamura gallery in Shinjuku, but when i shell out cash for a show, i do actually expect something more than a pretty view. If all you are seeking is a little visual pleasure then stick to galaxy gallery and Kitamura or Kodak and Fuji Galleries.
I was hoping there might be a little meat on this website, My bad. A little theory to support weak art is selling a show, weather you get and renumeration, what was really going on in the work? Like the simple question to annie liebowitz, Yasumasa Morimoto e.t. al, If the subjects were not already iconic could you still make a convincing piece? How would those images of Risaku Suzuki work if the trees were in mid winter? If the waterfall were just a concrete wall (could he go up against Toshio Shibata?) the snow was barren ground? with out the inherent interest in the subjects he selects, the work remains flat. (BTW flat and superflat are not really things to aspire to.)
I took another cruise through the selections of the TAB reviews and realized that the majority of reviews are fashion and illustration. I must apologize for mistaking this site as a forum for discussions of ART.
I will back off and let you enjoy your pictures and discourse amongst each other.
I was hoping to see something serious written on Nishi Tatzu, Torihada Minoru, Takashi Masada, Tomei Shimatsu, Miwa Yanagi, Toshio Shibata, or how the Tokyo galleries are peddling unripe brooklyn level pictures that are essentially pretty pictures that have little future, but then again I suspect you would like that stuff. Perhaps you need to read Jerry Saltz a little more before you sell these shows, or select things to write on.
P.S. If light entertainment is all you are seeking perhaps you ought to get your money back from your schools.