Joining this discussion late ... I will only interject two questions:
1) If you viewed this portfolio and did not know who shot it or what media was used, what would your opinion of the portraits be?
2) Should it make a difference who shot it and what media was used?
Drew: Apologies for a question which is slightly off the main subject, but related to your comments in two posts about cases where the "named photographer" didn't really take the pictures, merely "directed" the shoot. You mentioned George Hurrell. I just finished reading (and trying to learn something from the photographs in) "George Hurrell's Hollywood" by Mark Vieira. At least from my reading of the text, Hurrell not only took the pictures, he essentially performed one-man routines (singing, telling stories, jumping around), anything to get the expressions he wanted from the Hollywood personalities he was photographing. He also was responsible for most of the lighting. However, you seem to know people who were directly involved, and present a different version. Could you elaborate a little? It's an interesting subject, because some recent posts about Mapplethorpe pointed out that he had relatively little involvement in many of his photographs as well, again leaving the bulk of the process to assistants, and I have heard similar things about some of the current crop of "large format theatrically staged" photographers, like Gregory Crewdson, who have entire set construction staffs, "cherry pickers" to photograph from, and so on.
I guess this leads to two discussions: (1) I'm curious specifically about Hurrell, since your actual experience with his printer and assistants seems different from the book, and (2) a more general discussion about how much a photographer has to be responsible for to be "the photographer" of an image.
Last edited by Peter Lewin; 8-Feb-2014 at 12:54. Reason: mistyped "assistants" & corrected
Try googling my Chuck Close problem hyperallergic Scott Blake
Interesting
Your link was off a bit, maybe this is better.
http://hyperallergic.com/54104/my-chuck-close-problem/
I love it! The guy is right, he is sampling and all art is derivative.
He needs to fight!
Originally Posted by Dave Wooten
Context matters...
Does the subject matter?
Does the photographer matter?
Does the timeframe in history matter?
Does the timeframe within the subjects life matter?
Does the medium matter?
Could go on and on...yes, yes, yes, YES....
You've attached an iconic photo of two famous people to buttress your statement that context matters ... but is that photo any less powerful if you don't know who they are? ... or when it was taken ... or what medium was used ... or who took the photo?
Does it add a point of interest that it is Lennon and Ono and that it was taken by Leibovitz ... absolutely ... does it make any difference what camera, lens, or film she used ... or where or when the photo was taken or who the subjects are? Do those facts make it a better or more powerful photo ... I don't think so.
I'm not a big Leibovitz fan ... she pretty much exemplifies the "context" argument for photography ... but the photo of Lennon and Ono is a great photo regardless of who it is or who took it.
In 100 years it won't matter who it was or who took it ... It'll still be a great photo.
The photo is powerful, very, it's wonderful...
The fact that it's john Lennon, and that it's the last photo of him ever and he died the same day or what-not, yes it makes it way more powerful...
Just like that tintype of Phillip Seymour Hoffman is way more powerful since he died right after, there are many more powerful images in the set of tintypes, much better images, much more emotive and famous people, but the context in time when the image was taken make it a way more powerful image.
I'm not saying images that are good only come from famous people, I'm saying context matters...
If I told you I shot this 4x5 chrome of a young girl, is it interesting, maybe
Now if I told you it was Tori Anos as a young girl looking toward a bright future, does the image suddenly have more appeal, are you now drawn to look at the image, to analyze the bright red hair, the shimmer in her eyes and the innocence, knowing what has happened to her since and her path in life... Don't you want to take a second look, and suddenly it's more powerful?
And then...
I tell you that this is just a girl, a young artist, not Tori Amos... Just some girl... She's interesting, but seeing it you would pass by it quickly, no second looks, no deeper thoughts.
I'd rather you tell me nothing. If there needs to be explanatory text to accompany a photograph then the photograph is incomplete in some way. I prefer to encounter photographs without any context at all, at least on first viewing. I don't want to know who took it, or why, or with what gear, or on what film. I want to evaluate images at face value with as little bias as possible, like a blind taste test.
As for the Chuck Close portraits under discussion, if in order to truly appreciate them I have to know who he is, and I have to know the strict conditions under which he took them, and I have to know who his famous subjects are, then the photos have failed in a fundamental way. What makes them good photographs should be contained within the images themselves, not outside of them.
One of the things I love most about Avedon's In the American West portraits is that the staging is always the same and the people are anonymous, and therefore what shines through is the character of each subject and the mastery of the photographer. By leaving the film borders visible in the prints Avedon is signalling to the viewer that he used 8x10 film, a visual clue that requires no added words to convey.
Jonathan
Sorry. Dont like them. At all. Thats about it. I am sure there are reasons to collect or like them. But they dont speak to me artistically or photographically (nothing of interest going on there). 20x24 is cool, but thats about it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks