Shown to the Stars

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...

 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...

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...

1. I was very impressed with Beano's work at first glance because of the way she replicated her subjects multiple times within t he photos, keeping the original picture of the subject as well as a blurrier or darker version/s of the same subject in the same moment. 2. I would categorize her work as natural travel photography, as most of the images she captures are focused on whimsical landscapes from the many places she has visited. 3.  Nick Brandt, like Maya Beano, is a nature photographer. However, Brandt aims to depict the destruction human influence has wrought upon nature; he uses both humans and nature (including animals) as his main focus. On the other hand, Beano sets out to simply capture the beauty of nature, and while she does include humans and animals in some of her photos, it is clear that her main focus is on aesthetics rather than bringing awareness to global issues like climate change. While I like both of their works, I prefer Brandt's, because he has a noble ...

 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...