Shown to the Stars

 1. Initially, I was in awe of the wide, "zoomed out" shots that characterize much of Burtynsky's work, as well as curious as to what they were. It was often hard to discern the patterns and realize that they were actual landforms, but the focus on patterns is what makes his work so successful. It really puts into perspective how small and uniform our manmade landscape can be. 2. I would categorize Burtynsky's work as aerial landscape photography. His focus tends to be shots of a natural environment, changed by humanity in some way, but taken from a bird's eye perspective or from far away to capture all of the subject. 3. Tom Hegen is also an aerial landscape photographer. Much like Burtynsky, his purpose is to expose human impact on nature through photography, utilizing repeating patterns in landforms. I enjoy both of their works, because it brings awareness to the global impacts of humans, more specifically, industrialization, urbanization, etc. Hegen      ...

 1. Initially, I was mostly surprised and a little bit appalled by Knight's work. It is unique in a shocking way, because he is not afraid to use what I interpret as sci-fi or dystopian-like elements, whether they be prosthetics, editing, etc. 2. I would categorize Knight's photography as fashion surrealism, as he focuses on clothing/the style of his subjects, but does so in an unorthodox, often dreamlike and unnatural way. 3.  Commercial photographer David LaChapelle's work shocked me in a similar way to Knight's, as both photographers are fearless in their unorthodox depictions of subjects, often with maximalist style. The main difference I've spotted between their respective works is their backgrounds: LaChapelle draws attention to the backgrounds as well as the subjects by making them bright, unusual, or a contrast to the subject/s, while Knight solely focuses on his subjects, utilizing a plain, neutral background to make his subjects stand out. I respect their ...

1. Initially, I was very impr essed but also confused as to how Uelsmann got to the final products, as his photographs have other images layered within them. To be able to achieve this "photomontage" without Photoshop must have taken a lot of hard work and creativity, which I admire. The images themselves range from astounding to unsettling, but overall I like them. 2. I would categorize Jerry U elsmann's work as photomontage photography, typically contrasting a landscape/natural image with a human/manmade subject. 3. El Lissitzsky was a R ussian artist, designer, and photographer who, like Uelsmann, utilized the technique of creating a photomontage, resulting in fascinating layered images. However, Lissitzsky's images focus more on humans, whereas Uelsmann's do not, and if they do, the person is much smaller in the frame, largely trumped by their natural surroundings. I like both of their works, but overall I prefer Lissitzsky's due to its more intimate, per...

1. Penn's work didn't evoke much of an emotional reaction from me. His work is certainly of good quality, but even the odder photos aren't interesting to me. They're either too simple or unauthentic. For example, his portraits are nice to look at, but they seem unoriginal, because in modern times, plenty of portraits are taken in a similar style. 2. I would classify Irving Penn's work as celebrity and fashion portraiture, as he mainly photographs fashion models or celebrities for magazines like Vogue . 3. Compared to Damon Baker, who is also a celebrity photographer, I actually prefer Penn's work. After seeing more of Penn's work, I've realized it's much more creative, yet retains its simplicity that I now see as beautiful. Where Baker tends to stick with closeups to draw attention to his subjects' faces, Penn more often keeps more or all of the subject's body in the shot, as it usually adds to the message he's trying to get across to the...