>> |
Anonymous
>>178181 >It's as if, if you've built yourself a name, anything you take = instant art.
This is one way to look at it. Another is this: these people obviously know what they're doing; you know this by who they are and what they've done in the past not being shit. If they do something off or something that seems silly or trite initially, you know they didn't just do it because they were some DeviantArt hack. You know their work, you have a sense of who they are, and that they had some reason to press the shutter pointing the camera at this thing and show the results to you. Basically, you give them the benefit of the doubt.
Take this photograph from David Alan Harvey's most recent book, "Living Proof."
http://www.davidalanharvey.com/#a=0&at=0&mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=1&p=2
At first glance, I thought "Living Proof" was a flat-out dud, and that this was just another random club shot. Anyone who knows how to use a flash and has an eye for hot girls could've shot it. That anyone with those traits could've shot this photograph, that much is true.
But the same David Alan Harvey who shot this, who deemed this image part of a statement, who thought "Living Proof" was an estimable work, was the same one who put out "Cuba" and "Divided Soul," which are just plain masterpieces. And the same David Alan Harvey who shot this image:
http://www.davidalanharvey.com/#a=0&at=0&s=8&p=1
And tons of other work at Carnival in Brazil.
Looking more closely at "Living Proof," I saw how it fit in with the rest of Harvey's work, working on some of his same concerns: widely spread cultures, religion, women and feminine beauty, public celebrations, and other things. I still think it's his weakest work, but I don't think it's a dud. And the specific shot in question? I see how it works. I still don't think it's a great shot, but I can see how it's important in the context of "Living Proof" and Harvey's overall body of work.
|