I see what you mean, though — it falls short a little for me, too. But, it’s interesting.

Sure, you can see what picture they reference to with so little information, but then? I really don’t see what he’s trying to do.

I think it would have been more interesting to me if it had been done by computer, with some kind of a routine, showing how they can transform images we know, or places we know, but still keeping them recognisable. Something like the jpgs series from Thomas Ruff.

I don’t know if I’m really clear, maybe it’s because it’s confused in my head.

I don’t know for sure that there is a point, that’s for you to decide — I was just sharing the photography-related work for people to consider. However, if I remember correctly, at the lecture he discussed how he finds it interesting that these objects can reference the originals with so little information provided. He spoke quite a lot about working with a copy of an original, which he does in many of his projects. And I think in the History of Photography Remix he is deconstructing some of the more well known images and making them into these unfamiliar “paintings,” objects to those of us that don’t know the history of photography — and to those of us that are well versed in the images, they reference an “original.” I think, on many levels, this also speaks about photography’s ability to be reproduced. I dont suspect that they are necessarily adding anything to the original photographs, I think it’s what he is taking away that is becomes important. I wouldn’t be able to tell you exactly what Mr. Ezawa was thinking, though.

What are they adding to the original photographs? Or to the subject of the photography? I don’t really see what more i get from looking at the paintings than looking at the originals…