'Great' Photographers

[softgrey]

yeah...
i get it...
just not a fan of this kind of imagery...


not for me...

 

[JHB]

I don't think the intent was to make Arnold and Cindy look their best. The intent was to set up almost absurd pseudo-documentary portraits.

Cindy Crawford as Eve, with the snake mirroring the curves of Crawford. The trees behind her serving as a possible reference to the Tree of Life.

Arnold as the ultimate conquerer, shirtless and in complete control of his white horse. He has a cigar and a horse, many props and perhaps serving as subtle (or not to subtle) phallic symbols.

I think these portaits are brilliant.

wow!, you rule, more!

 

[Neo_Classic]

Cindy as Eve sounds interesting. Any pics?

 

[JHB]

Cindy as Eve sounds interesting. Any pics?

http://www.faheykleingallery.com/images/photographs/leibovitz_a/leibovitz_01_bg.jpg

 

[Neo_Classic]

Thank you.

 

[Aida.Sevan]

I've checked Sacha Waldman, and though she has her own style and I find her work very impressive and professional, I don't like it. Most of her pictures have feeling of sadness and lonelyness. It was very negative for me, and I'm still under her mood... Very depressive...

 

[.francesca]

speaking specifically about the 'cindy as eve' picture, i as well don't like it. i find it boring, it doesn't strike any chords in me. i don't get an overwhelming sense of spiritual joy while looking at it, and, just like other images that don't capture my interest, it doesn't make me want to look at others like it or by the same artist. the 'adam and eve' imagery is tired and i don't like the composition in general; i mean obviously the focal point is clearly stated, but other than it, the rest of the image is boring. i understand that that's the point, but the 'point' doesn't really capture my interest.

same with the arnold image. i get that he represents strength and the white horse symbolism, but it does nothing for me emotionally. like i get the phallic symbols..yes, he's virile, that's very obvious...but that sort of symbolism in art, in general, doesn't do anything for me.

softgrey said it very well: just doesn't do it for me.

i understand that many well-known photographers are just that - well-known - for being classic and having made waves with their art, but a lot of the time i just don't enjoy it. maybe my tastes veer more toward things more edgy and less conventional, i don't know. but i just find a lot of 'important' images boring and uninteresting.

i'm still coming up with my list of favorites, i promise!

 

[texastess]

Are we listing only "fashion" photographers?

Believe me, I understand those of you who don't like the above mentioned photographs. I feel a similar disintrest when looking at David LaChapelle's work. It's not that it's offensive, because I love the work of Larry Clark and he is often considered offensive, it just doesn't move me.

Art is so subjective.

 

[texastess]

I've checked Sacha Waldman, and though she has her own style and I find her work very impressive and professional, I don't like it. Most of her pictures have feeling of sadness and lonelyness. It was very negative for me, and I'm still under her mood... Very depressive...

Sacha is a he, and I love depressing work.

 

[texastess]

i'm still coming up with my list of favorites, i promise!

I'm looking forward to your list. I've seen your photography and it is very, very good.

 

[Aida.Sevan]

Sacha is a he, and I love depressing work.

I met him first time, but thanx.

 

[.francesca]

now that i'm finished with the work i had to do, i can devote some time to coming up with my list.

first of all, i'm coming from a predominantly fine art photography background, so that's where my passion lies, but there are several fashion photogs in my list.

sarah moon. i'm continually floored by her work, regardless of how many times i see it.

robert parke-harrison. he's not a fashion photographer, but his work is meticulous and symbolic without being regurgitated or contrived. he and his wife work together, and if you've ever seen it up close, in real life, it will take your breath away. here is one of my favorite images.

inez and vinoodh. i love the work they did with bjork and the balenciaga ads from a few seasons back.

paolo roversi. like sarah moon, his work resonates with me for its other-dimensional quality, and it's unique timelessness. it's not your straight-up photography work, it's non-linear and keeps me looking for its secrets inside. the same could be said for moon, though in its way it's obviously different.

uta barth. uta's work intrigues me because it's unlikely. the directionals are odd, as well as the focal points and the distribution of content.

john s. vitale. he was featured in surface's avant guardian show last year.

there are a TON more, but those are some off the top of my head. i find photographers like david lachepelle and terry richardson completely overrated. they do nothing for me visually or emotionally. the classics like herb ritts, anton corbijn and others are obviously good, but their images don't interest me at all anymore. it's just totally not my style. i view things like this in the way that i'd want to hang it on my wall and be proud to say that i like it. i could never hang a lachapelle on my wall. it's just not what i want to look at.