Skip to main content

Fan Ho

 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                                      Fan Ho

Henri Cartier-Bresson, San Francisco, California, USA, 1946 | Jackson Fine ArtFan Ho: Master of photography | The Independent Photographer

4. If someone made Ho's work today, it would be much more difficult to do so, and would likely be censored due to the extreme surveillance China's citizens are currently subjected to. If it were possible to share uncensored photos, the geometric shapes Ho used to frame his subjects would likely come off as much more compressed and oppressive to reflect the times.

5. I agree with Fan Ho's quote, "My belief in art creation is to try anything" because if he hadn't taken the bold step of experimentation with new forms of photography, it is unlikely that he would have been so successful in the creation of such beautiful photographs. This applies to other trailblazers in the arts as well; an artist's bravery to show their unique perspective to the world is what allows art to progress.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Michael Kenna

 1. I immediately fell in love with Kenna's work when I first saw it, because it is simple and yet stark. I love the mysterious and sometimes a little spooky energy it has due to the shots being in black and white. His work has a peaceful, almost nostalgic energy due to the long exposure that makes it feel like the viewer has been suspended alone in time and space. 2. Michael Kenna is a monochromatic landscape photographer. He often finds simple objects, natural and manmade, and captures them in a way that makes them stand out, despite (and perhaps because of) being in shades of gray, black, and white. 3. Michael Kenna and Ansel Adams both captured the beauty of black and white landscapes, utilizing the contrast between light and dark to emphasize certain elements of their photos. Adams gravitates towards impressive, sprawling landscapes in places like Yellowstone National Park, or Yosemite, while each of Kenna's photos tends to focus on one complete subject, like a tree, rathe...
Post a Comment
Read more

David LaChapelle

1. The only way I can describe my initial reaction to LaChapelle's work is "weirded out". His work is of good quality and it's compositionally interesting, but it's incredibly bizarre, and just not the type of art I typically enjoy. 2. David LaChapelle is a commercial photographer because he photographs mainly celebrities for magazines to promote their image and allow the magazine to profit. 3. Marino Testino's portraits of celebrities are very tame compared to LaChapelle's. He has also worked for popular magazines such as Vogue and Vanity Fair, but his images follow the mainstream: they capture celebrities in all their glory and glamour, perhaps adding a bold feauture or two. LaChapelle, on the other hand, magnifies the bold features and makes them the theme of his work. I'm not a huge fan of either of their works, but I don't hate them, either. There is clear craftsmanship involved for each, and I respect that, even if LaChapelle's is a litt...
Post a Comment
Read more

Gregory Crewdson

 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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more