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. Gregory Crewdson captures the dark side of rural America | CNN

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 human emotions. There are some similarities between their respective works, in that they both strive to portray real, human emotions; it's just that how each approaches this objective is vastly different from the other. I prefer Levitt's work due to its general joy, lack of contemporary technology, and candid style.

Levitt: (my favorite photos of hers that I've seen so far)

Helen Levitt: Photographing the Heart of Old New York Helen Levitt - New York Street Photographer

4. If someone remade Crewdson's work now, I believe they would flip his theme of photographing humans interacting with nature that doesn't belong in a manmade setting, to humans interacting with technology overgrown in a natural setting. This would effectively reflect the massive, rapid growth of technology in our world today. I also believe his subjects would be more racially diverse, as everyone in the pictures I've seen appears to be white.

Gregory Crewdson | Untitled | The Guggenheim Museums and Foundation

5. I find it interesting that Crewdson refers to his work as "commonplace", because it appears as very much unnatural. However, this is just due to the composition; the lighting and staging may be artificial, but the content of his work is not. It reflects very real emotions and thoughts (the "psychological nature"), so I suppose that is what he means when he calls his photos "commonplace".

Comments

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...

Josef Sudek

1 . The work is calming and a little whimsical. In my opinion, it perfectly captures the calm after the storm and the beauty in abandonment/isolation. The shots have a beautiful, dark gray aesthetic, which I enjoy a lot. 2. Sudek's work is classified as neo-romantic, but if I had to categorize it I would say it is melancholy life photography, just based on the gray tones, solitary objects, and places relatively void of bustling city life/people, etc. 3. Fan Ho and Josef Sudek have some similar shots in the way they capture rays of soft sunlight filtering between buildings/architectural structures, as shown below. Sudek has less work featuring this motif, but Ho often focuses on that. Overall, I prefer Fan Ho, but between the photos shown below, I enjoy Sudek's more. 4. If someone made Sudek's work today, it would more heavily focus on ruination and abandonment, really honing in on the decline of our world in terms of the current conflicts and division we face globally. 5...

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...

Shown to the Stars

Search This Blog