One of my other favorites is Peter Fraser's Everday Icons.
I am attracted to simplicity, but still interested in the pattern, texture, line and composition. I would really like to explore this, but there's a part of me that doesn't think I should. The answer to my question before could be that it's personal preference whether or not one can connect with this type of imagery. It seems to simple. How do you feel about Letinksy and Fraser's works?
1 comments:
Monica,
As I touched on a bit before in my last artist post, I do not think that an image needs to have a figure in it in order for it to be strong. I wasn't sure whether to write this on the other post or here, but nonetheless, I enjoy the simplicity of Letinsky and Fraser's work. I am particularly interested in simple spaces. What I've been thinking about a lot lately is how little can be included in the photograph for it to be considered strong. For myself it is important to simplify my space, otherwise I try to "tell," too much. The photographs that include human relics are interesting to me because they make you question about the human without the presence of the human. Simply because I can relate the objects, such as the suitcase and clothes to myself. I start to ask questions about the person not there and about their things. The more questions a viewer can ask about the photograph, the wider the interpretation. Monica, RUN WITH THIS IDEA!!! I am very intrigued by your most recent photos and think that you are capable of portraying emotional artifacts in an interesting way. I can tell that you are much more confident about your work/what you want to do, so if this interests you I encourage you to explore it! I think there is something very intriguing about the everyday relic because the common population can relate to it. I would ask yourself what the lack of a person is doing for your photos? Do you solely want to concentrate on light/color to keep your viewer's interest?
Post a Comment