Some uncomfortable truths about photography

<p><em>Pretty P/S stuff play</em>.<br>

Please post some examples of your pictures which you feel have equaled Wong's (or even gotten within 100 miles of them). :-)</p>

<p>Von Wong is very derivative of David LaChapelle.</p>

<p>http://www.davidlachapelle.com/series/</p>

<p>I'll admit Wong appears to be technically more advanced in what appears to be setup and post production efficiency. But being a groundbreaking creative genius from an aesthetic sense? It's a stretch, but hey, he's 26 and has plenty of time to learn and advance to the level of Lachapelle.</p>

<p>Even Mr. Lachapelle shows he's growing and improving in coming up with images never seen or imagined before going by that link.</p>

<p> </p>

Agree with Allen...

<p>Surrealism is nothing new, it has been around for nearly 100 years. It involves unexpected juxtapositions often of dream like quality. Had much to do with the Freudian dream analysis. My degree is in psyc and the arts, in my study of the history of photography, I found this genre a bit heavy handed for my tastes. I prefer more subtle psychological messages which are an integral part of my work. Pre WWII, the technique was to create a montage of several images or photographing the montage called a photomontage. I guess today we would call it flattening a composite. Not new either. This 20 some things work looks reminiscent of work of 50 yr old David LaChapelle. I wonder which is the creative genius, and which is the imitator? Michael is right, it seems to be the style of many local young photographers. One of the best locally, a LaChapelle fan, could make more money flipping burgers so Michael's prediction of a glut may be coming true. In 18th century literature they had a term for over use of the anti-conventional, they called it the convention of the anti-convention. Unfortunately, with limited life experience in their youth, their imagery seems limited to skulls, death, fire and violence/blood(like they have ever seen the real thing) and as Allen points out, they're just make pretty pictures. His expressions are limited to the 2 usual: cranky or vacant/empty as the model's head. Their cultural background upon which they draw their imagery seems limited to computer games. So, although I didn't mention age in my original post, I wouldn't hesitate to say that lack of life experience and broad knowledge in youth can be a disadvantage and no amount of dramatic lighting and computer "artistry" (excuse me, that expression makes me gag) can make up for that. The tragedy is they don't know what they don't know. To quote an old, dead photographer, Ansel Adams, there is nothing worse that a sharp image of a fuzzy idea." </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bob Bill -- <em>...their imagery seems limited to computer games.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>Well put. Pretty much my thought as well. Not sure if Von Wong's imagery (or those like him) is an expression of a "fuzzy idea" though. The image <em>is</em> the idea. It's "in your face" glitz. Dramatic fantasy constructs like it are seen on a regular basis in Vanity Fair...albeit a bit more subtly done, and most frequently created by Annie Liebovitz. </p>

<p><em>Their cultural background upon which they draw their imagery seems limited to computer games.</em><br>

<em> </em>Absolutely agree. I can only repeat, I consider Wong to be an exceptionally able technician, I suspect he has done time as an intern with a top advertising photog, which puts him in the fortuitous position of being old enough to be technically skilful and young enough to be on the wavelength of the computer game generation. He seems to have a pretty strong work ethic and I feel thoroughly deserves any success he achieves in the world of advertising.<br>

Is he making timeless statements about the human condition? No – or if he is, only inadvertently. Is he a great photographer who will be remembered forever? Only time will tell – but again I’d have to say no.</p>

<p><em>Their cultural background upon which they draw their imagery seems limited to computer games.</em><br>

The broad strokes of anti youth comments above, I could not disagree more. There are lots of very talented young artist and photographers out there. Some of them with a heavy baggage of experience and skills at a very young age. That computer games has been one of their experiences is just as natural. It is part of childhood and youth life throughout the world. That you therefore find references to computer game culture in works like those of Mr Van Wong is just a sign of the age they are living and no indication, what so ever, of lack of other types of knowledge and experiences.</p>

<p>I mentioned myself above that I found that Wong used a lot of effects in his setup shots and that with time and maturity he might controlled them better and be more measured over time. He certainly, in my eyes have the talent - at an early age.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bob Atkins Nov 15, 2013; 05:51 p.m. Maybe we can draw a parallel between photography and writing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or, graphic design and the music engineering industry. Computers changed those two creative professions before photography. </p>

<p>I don't think Von Wong is a creative genius. I think he's impressive.</p>

<p>There are many different uses of, reasons for, and expressions made by photos.</p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p><em>"Their cultural background upon which they draw their imagery seems limited to computer games."</em></p>

<p><em>"The broad stokes of anti-youth comments."</em></p>

<p>The second statement expresses where I would fall on the discussion and could also be cut and pasted whenever threads get started that wonder why PN isn't attracting more photographers. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>mea culpa</em></p>

<p>It's scary how quickly some of us (me!) can fall into criticizing on the basis of broad stereotypes.</p>

<p>HEY YOU KIDS!!! GET OFF MY LAWN!!!</p>

<p>"Von Wong "is a creative genius. He operates on a level beyond most people"</p>

<p>Most folks employed in the Computer Games industry produce similar work but they do not call themselves Photographers.</p>

<p>"The broad stokes of anti-youth comments." Fred.</p>

<p>An hysterical statement claiming that if you do like the work of a particular photographer you are a prejudice against them; in this case it's against youth. Youth or otherwise folks are entitled to their opinions...zap, bang, wallop, super hero comic stuff with nothing to say does not work for me.</p>

<p>All critique is good...... take it on board or otherwise....but it will always give pause for thought if nothing else.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Allen, I'm sorry you misunderstood me. My claim had nothing to do with someone not liking the work of a particular photographer. I, myself, don't happen to love the work, even though I'm impressed by it, which are too very different things. I was responding to a comment that wasn't about the particular photographer at all, but was about youth in general. Just above my own comment, I quoted the comment I was responding to. I had hoped that would make my thoughts clear. I'm usually pretty accepting of individual critiques of a photographer or a photograph. I'm not as accepting of generic put-downs of a generation. That, I'm happy to stand by.</p>

<p><em>"Their cultural background upon which they draw their imagery seems limited to computer games."</em></p>

<p>Missed that.</p>

<p>You are right, Fred.</p>

<p>A banal sweeping statement which is totally untrue.</p>

<p>Don't knock computer games . . . or movies. The companies that make them employ some of the greatest creative minds on Earth, and being influenced by them is actually quite a good thing. The greatest painters in history were influenced by other artists, right? Well, if a video game was put together by other artists, doesn't it make sense that it could be a good place to find inspiration? I have a niece who is incredibly talented (even got into an Ivy League art school, and was fortunate/good enough to receive a scholarship, so she could go there), and she is part of the new generation that has grown up with modern video games and smart phones. Just because life is a little different today does not mean that there is no talent in the World, and where the kids draw their inspiration does not really matter, does it? What counts is that they are producing amazing imagery . . . and they really are. All one has to do is look around on the Internet at some of the incredible work produced by teenagers, and it shows us that as photographers we have to get better or we should just quit and do something else. Old dogs don't always learn new tricks, but I think there will be a lot of that happening over the next few years, as has been happening over the past couple of years. Things are changing . . . for sure . . . but I believe that things are changing for the better in many ways. I believe almost everyone will benefit from most of the changes.</p>