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.

David LaChapelle | For Then It Was Vital, For Then It Was Graceful

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 little unsettling.

David LaChapelle, American Jesus: Archangel Michael Jackson, 64 x 48 inches

4. A hallmark of LaChapelle's work is the contrast of a bright, bold, luxurious figure set against a natural, sometimes harsh, environment as the background. If someone were to remake his work, I believe they would use places ravaged by war, climate change, natural disaster, etc. as the background, while still keeping the materialistic figure as the focal point. This would emphasize the discrepancy between first world materialism and third world poverty, making a beautiful picture as well as sending an important political/social message.

Lavazza Calendar 2020 by David LaChapelle

5. LaChapelle's quote concisely encapsulates the bold themes of his photographs, and offers an explanation as to why he chooses to make them so bizzare and bright. His pictures really do tell a story as well as, and perhaps even better than, the written word can.

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...

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 ...

Shown to the Stars

Search This Blog