THOMAS DEMAND

I still cant decide whether I am interested in this work or not. I think I am. I think it is recreation of the still life. Hes remaking objects from paper to creeate situations to photograph.
His photos look like those perfect imperfections whcih i collect from B&Q and this is kind of what mkaes the work look shit. It is obvious that all the objects are made from paper, which is what makes you question about surface. yes this work is about surface and still life. His placement of things are too concidered however I dont know how much he ewants it to look real. if they objects look so unreal because of the nature of material then surely it doesnt matter if the placements also look a bit fake. in fact it could be argued that the placement has to look as fake as the objects for it to work? otherwise it would be too confusing.
When you know theres it fakes then theres no clue to the scale, you start to think about the prcoess of how it was made and question how much of the whole thing is real. which bits are real. are these images hes representing from REAL situations? or has he made them up? does he work from photogrpahs? how much is real and more much is fake? nice. i do really like this work actually. |There has been no attempt to add in detailof making it too look real, like fischli and weiss try to add everything little detail. for them it is about it being as real as is it in real life. here Demand uses the look of fakeness to make the viewer question which elements of this siutation are real and not. They are "trying" to be real though. like the pages scattered around.

Hes chosen situations which if they were to exist in real life would be quite mundane. theres alot of situations which deal wth the workplace. everydayness. the exterior ones puzzle me. When he doesnt do just close ups of obhjects, he does full on scenes, again you would expect it to be redone same size but hes probably done it tiny.