An interesting artist. A son of a hand surgeon, so raised as wealthy middle class. Working in a studio, which we are led to believe is just left as a "paper rubbish mountain" from which he delves in from time to time and withdraws printed items from the internet and incorporates them in his art.
He interestingly enforces the point that college is the mechanics of photography, art and printing in all formats. The ability to create by the application of added layers is the building block of everything we see and reproduce in life. Understanding how a college is created, breaks down "layers" and all the modern systems which are similar to create computer generated images.
Gordon also discusses the fact he is appropriating other artists work and re-utilising them in a different format. This is an argument that every photographer and artist should have an opinion on. For it is very well backing Gordon's point of view, "the history of the original images are not important."
However how would you as an artist or photographer feel if an artist like Gordon was exhibiting and selling for substantial money a piece of art which included parts of your work, maybe in a different format, but still your work? Your unaccredited work?
This is an argument which will continue to blot the creativeness of this style of art. I also believe in the same way as music and the use of the movie image have previously, this will one day be sorted not by photographers but by copyright lawyers.
Gordon's work is interesting, especially as they go full circle and finish as photographic images. I find the points and questions this style of work more fascinating than his actual artistic pieces...