I find that Tyler Shields challenges some of my notions of Art, success, aesthetics...
On the one hand, his pictures often appeal to me. Beautiful people, cleanly lit, what’s not to like?
On the other hand, his work seems to be devoid of any knowledge or understanding of Art history.
Even when he obviously rips off others, his pastiche seems to miss the point of the original and always ends up a lesser work. [It is obvious in every single example shown in the article that was shared in this thread.]
Shield doesn’t have a formal training as an artist, and has been quoted saying he doesn’t look at the works of others too much, even though he presents his work as Art, and insists that he shoots specifically with the goal of making prints and books. It almost feels like a form of arrogance ; I think (my) Art is important, I have the ambition to have my work out in galleries, but I can’t be bothered to study the Artists that came before
The resulting work feels extremely shallow, and devoid of a unifying theme or unique perspective. In a word, it’s not self-aware as Art.
But then there’s a third thing about Shields :
He seems to have a sincere love of photography as a process.
He uses a lot of film cameras, from medium format to 8x10, he often has his B&W work printed on platinum/palladium, and has printed color work with dye transfer...
Even the fact that he has a YouTube channel sharing the kind of stories that sparked this thread : there’s no way videos like this help his sales in galleries, and they won’t raise his profile as a celebrity... I think the guy is genuinely excited about all that stuff and loves to geek out about photography.
Maybe Tyler Shields is the most accomplished of all forum photographers?
A guy who is passionate about the medium and the gear even though he doesn’t have any groundbreaking ideas, but he knows what the average Hollywood rich guy will like and he’s not embarrassed to give them just that.
Bookmarks