Shown to the Stars

 1. My initial reaction to Crewdson's photos was admiration of the lighting and cinematic style of the way he shoots, but as I continued to look through more of his photos, a sense of unease grew. This is due to the eery, surreal energy his work gives off because of the staged, artificial moments he captured, yet at the same time manage to be reflective of the human psyche. 2. I would categorize Crewdson's work as cinematic photography, because it is all staged, but tries to be perceived as candid representations of human emotions, so it adds a hint of surrealism to it. 3.  Helen Levitt is a candid photographer whose photos, at first glance, seem to be in stark contrast to Crewdson's. Hers mainly captured the everyday life of poor New Yorkers in the 30's and revealed the heart of people going about their day in a world without technology. Crewdson's, on the other hand, are captured through a cinematic, artificial, modern-day lens, and mostly depict the dark side of ...

 1.  Initially, I was in awe of Ho’s photos. I love the neutral beige and grey tones because it reminds me of nostalgic vintage photos. I also love that his subject matter is street life, and plays with the juxtaposition between dark and light that shows the distinction between architecture and humanity, like arches, straight lines, etc. that frame people. 2. Fan Ho’s work can be categorized as street photography because the majority of the settings he photographs are the streets. 3. Henri Cartier-Bresson was a humanist photographer with a knack for candid photography. While they both captured people on the streets, the people in Fan Ho's shots were often small in comparison to their surroundings, so more of the focus was on the street life they occupied. I enjoy Ho's work more than Cartier-Bresson's because it is more romanticized and comforting than Bresson's honest, unsettling work, and I prefer the shades and shapes of Ho's photos. Henri Cartier-Bresson     ...

 1.  My initial reaction was surprise and intrigue at the content of the photographs. It was jarring to see the subjects with monkeys and hyenas on leashes, and the devastation and anguish of the people and their surroundings, because it represents a culture so different from my own. However, at the same time, I really appreciate the composition, quality, and subject matter of Hugo's works. 2. I would categorize Hugo’s work as documentary portraiture because he places an emphasis on shocking images. He does so to reveal the horrors of post-Apartheid Africa to fuel social justice for the mistreatment of the subjects he photographs.  3.  Clifford Prince King also photographs solely black people, but King's and Hugo's photography styles are vastly different. King attempts to normalize the existence of queer black men through intimate photoshoots, often in a sexual but comfortable way, which is a form of social justice in itself. Hugo, on the other hand, leans into the c...

 1. I was initially a bit surprised at Corbijn’s work, because it is unconventional in a way that made me feel  slightly uneasy. However, as I looked at more of his photos, I grew to appreciate the beauty in the oddity. 2. Since his work is slightly unorthodox, it’s hard to place in a specific category, but I would say most of his work fits among human portraits. 3. Damon Baker is a photographer of people, as Corbijn is, and they both manage to capture the life of the people in their shots. However, Corbijn tends to lean more on the gritty, raw, and frankly a bit odd, side of people, particularly celebrities’, personas, whereas Baker captures the glamorous angst of modern day celebrities. I like both of their works, and appreciate both for their raw quality. (Sadie Sink!) Baker                                  (David Bowie!) Corbijn 4. If someone tried to replicate Corbijn’s work today, i...