Look at all the work by this photographer. Not only do they do these super interesting portrait shots, but shots from above the earth and animals as well. I find the portraits particularly interesting because even though the people seem drastically different in character they are placed a similar space. This same technique is rendered in the animal series. Granted that I think of space as a very intriguing concept; to place each person/persons in the same/similar background space lets us focus on the character of the people or relationship between animals and people. By looking at this body of work our questions are much more directed toward each person than how each is interacting with the context of their space, if every space was different. I think that this is an interesting background to put your frame around. For anyone working toward portraits, check out the body of the work. For those not working with people, look at the other photos on his site: http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org/v2/yab_us.htm
For some reason I couldn't figure out how to load them individually. I know this is an extra step to take, but trust me, it's worth it to check out. Just put your cursor over the picture and click on the different photography series. The site I provided should take you to the English version.
My question for this time is: what does having the same background/background quality do for a body of photos. If a body of photos is shot in this way, is a singular photo from this series potentially just as strong, or should it be understood only in multiple shots? I think that this post would benefit most anyone looking to do studio lighting as a possible option or anyone who is looking to do portraits. Look how little the photographer provides within the frame, yet it still remains compositionally and conceptually strong.
March 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
I really appreciate your question Jacki. This is something that I have always been stumped by. Is a single portrait just as powerful as a triptych or even a diptych? I don't know...I have come to find that scale has an effect for sure. If I see a small picture in a gallery, even if it is absolutely beautiful or oddly attractive to me...I feel like I want it to be larger so I am not distracted by larger pieces of art in the gallery. Now if they are all small, then I think it can stand on it's own. However I feel like you have to contend with other things when thinking about how to present. I am more stunned and moved by a series then just a singular image. I think they make a bigger mental impact. I am not sure if there is a right or wrong answer to this question...but I think it is something that every artist needs to think about when they are presenting work. Before I would have only put up a singular image, but after doing more and more photos and following certain processes I want to put up at least a diptych, but again, its not what we want, but what works. Right? Gosh, I wish there was a specific answer...
Post a Comment