|
discovered archetypes that he would continue to explore and began to use a square format.
Entering the new millennium, Ballen’ s work became more conceptual, and he was frustrated by the limitations of portraiture. Human subjects are diminished in his 2001,‘ Outland’ and by 2009 they are a rarity in,‘ Boarding House.’ Ballen describes how he had,“ made the transition
between somebody who was trying to document people through portraiture to someone who( had) extended his ideas to the point that portraiture faded out.” To focus an image around a human subject was seemingly to limit what the photograph could communicate to a viewer’ s assessment of the individual. Gerhard Schoeman’ s consideration of‘ Boarder House’ illustrates this point. In his discussion of‘ Girl in White Dress’ he grabbles with the ambiguity
of the picture. Schoeman contemplates
|
the relevance of the Latin phrase, in camera, meaning in chamber- or in private. Unable to draw a concrete conclusion as to the meaning behind the image he suggests,“ while Ballen’ s photographic room of perpetual decline appears to reveal or expose its subject, its meaning remains private; obscure.” His interpretation determined by an understanding of the image’ s subject. Schoeman is perhaps more aligned with Ballen’ s creative vision when he discusses the image as,“ an apocalyptic corner, haunted by a Thing without representation.” This‘ Thing’ is the essence of Ballen’ s work and the true subject of his imagery. That is to say, in his manipulation of miss-en-scene Ballen creates an allegory of that dark corner of the human physce- that undefined element of the self which he is at such pains to express.
Ballen’ s increasing focus on staging has lead him to work in other mediums
|
. Speaking of this process of incorporation he describes,“ a desire to express( him) self,” though he lacked the ability to create a satisfying result,“ It took sometime to develop a means by which drawing could be integrated with the photograph.” This artistic dimension is fundamental in the expression of Schoeman’ s‘ Thing.’ It would seem the further Ballen reduces the human component in his photography( as he continues to do in his forthcoming work,‘ The Asylum’) the more eloquently he can communicate his concept. Rather than being the imagined force acting upon the human subject of the photograph. The‘ Thing’ itself becomes the subject of the image. Ballen’ s later works are a visualisation of a troubled physce, a less conventional photography, to express a more abstract idea.
Given his experimentation with various artistic mediums
|
, it is perhaps inevitable that Ballen should eventually produce a work of moving image. In 2012 he collaborated with‘ Die Antwoord’ and Dutch duet, to create the video for their single‘ I Fink U Freeky.’ Ballen’ s aesthetic translates seamlessly to video, and the piece is every bit as distinctive as his photography.
Ballen is an unusual case in that the majority of his inspiration seems to come from his own imaginings. His earlier work is likened to the work of American photographer Diane Arbus. Though his recent conceptual works shows a break from this documentary photography. The careful development of a personal style brings to mind the focused vision of an auteur Director. Though this isolated way of working does seem to hold an element of tunnel vision, Ballen’ s success is testament to what can be achieved working within the parameters of your own creativity.
|