A while back, we featured this home with WYSIWYG photography that didn’t pretty up a thing. Remember this place in East San Jose with the really inspired photography (if by inspired I really meant WTF)?
This was the home where most of the photos were of the floor and the bottom third of the walls. At the time I said that the agent was a misunderstood artist, and the opposite of Edgar Martins. You were probably wondering who Edgar Martins was. Today, you’re going to find out why this Portuguese-born Macau-raised fine-arts photographer is just like a realtard.
Edgar Martins was commissioned in 2008 for a very high-profile New York Times Magazine photo essay on the physical results of the mortgage meltdown. There was some resentment from American photographers over this gig being given to a European, but Martins certainly had a gift for the compelling image.
Then someone worked out why they were so intriguing. His photos weren’t what he claimed they were.
Martins has always said that he didn’t do any post-production of his work at all, that there was no digital manipulation. Looking at his work now, it’s screamingly obvious everything was mirrored, cloned, and shopped out the yinyang. For years all the fine arts types believed him until Adam Gurno (unixrat) on MetaFilter called shenanigans, and as a result, the New York Times yanked his photo essay.
To be honest, he said the above more like this:
This work explores the concept of ‘home’ as an idea and a form, and summons a disquieting conjunction of reality, hyper-reality, fantasy and fiction.
And he justifies lying to his fans, his clients, his curators, and his employers with this PoMo putrescence:
“It is my view that there was a clear misunderstanding concerning the values and rights associated to the creative process which made a renown publication like The New York Times Magazine, commission a fine-artist, such as myself, to depict a very specific view of reality without taking all the necessary measures to ensure that I was aware of its journalistic parameters and limits. On the other hand I did not see these as a valid boundary. . . . Whilst I welcome some of the debate that is taking place, I did not envisage that it would be mostly centered on polarities such as ethical/unethical, right/wrong, real/unreal.”
And we should have known from the get-go that they’re ALL lying. And if we didn’t, then being tricked out of hundreds of thousands of dollars is just part of the context of representational imagery and the insubstantiality of happiness from material things. Let’s not debate pointless polarities such as true/false, positive/negative, gain/loss, permitted/unpermitted, yours/mine, or signed/forged.
I do recommend you look at his “This is Not a House” set of photos on his website, and his photography book of the same title has just been released. Note there is no more bluster about his images being unprocessed or unaltered. Now “his interest is in summoning a disquieting conjunction of realism and fiction by ‘cutting into the real’.”
The book description for This is Not a House also says it was a commission for the NYT, but neglects to mention his rather public firing for misrepresenting his artistic process. As fine art critique of bubble building and bust, it is indeed powerful stuff. Most of it also looks shopped. I can tell by the pixels.
And as realtard speak, it’s obvious fiction stubbornly insisting it’s 100% factual. Home prices never go down! Yes it’s affordable! Buy now or be priced out forever! The rules of the market don’t apply here! The TIME to BUY is NOW.