The transformation of the everyday in the photographs of David Goltz

The two photographs by David Goltz show a simple single-family house, staged in both pictures through its garden and surroundings. But while the motifs appear almost identical at first glance, a complex juxtaposition of transience, control and the role of humans in their environment unfolds on closer inspection.

The first image presents a lovingly maintained home in which the garden plays a central role. The neatly trimmed bushes and artfully arranged garden figures suggest a strong human intervention in nature – an order that attempts to tame the wild. Here, nature becomes an object of human creativity, while the many decorative elements carry an almost baroque abundance of meaning. The overburdened garden, full of ornamentation and symbolism, points to a desire for control and perhaps also to the need to create a microcosm that defies the chaos of the outside world. This image resonates with the art-historical tradition of the garden as a symbol of culture, in which man rises above nature and shapes it according to his ideas.

In contrast to this is the second image, which shows the same house, but now overgrown and reclaimed by nature. Here, the boundary between architecture and the environment becomes blurred: nature pushes back, covering the house and blurring the traces of human order. Where order dominates in the first image, the uncontrolled spreads here. This transformation is reminiscent of romantic depictions of ruins, where decay is seen as an expression of beauty and mortality. It gives rise to a deeper, more philosophical reflection on the temporary influence of humans and their ultimate powerlessness against nature. Goltz captures not only the decay but also the return of the organic – a cycle that is both fascinating and inevitable.

From a philosophical perspective, the two works illustrate the eternal tension between human order and natural wildness. The well-kept structure in the first picture conveys a sense of control and security, while the second picture represents the inevitable transience of these efforts. The idea of “memento mori” resonates here – the reminder that all human efforts to exert control are only temporary. Goltz's photographs thus open up a quiet but powerful dialogue about the relationship between humans and nature and the inescapable passing of time.

In art historical terms, the two works draw on motifs from landscape painting and the aesthetics of nature, which, since the Romantic period, have repeatedly addressed the contrast between man-made structures and the natural environment. They are reminiscent of artists like Caspar David Friedrich, whose landscapes repeatedly bear witness to the presence of man as a temporary actor in eternal nature. But while Friedrich's works speak of the sublimity of nature, Goltz's photographs focus on the subtlety and ordinariness of this confrontation – a single-family house that becomes a symbol of human endeavor and its limits.