Jump to content

Some wonderful photos


wogears

Recommended Posts

<p>Certainly no prudishness here, but it is noteworthy that there is a sense of natural and extensive nudity among the girls and none among the boys, whose nudity is more often seemingly consciously hidden. That seems to say something about either the personal sensibility of the photographer or the culture at large, and comes off a bit self consciously, IMO. Actually, the boys seem much more secondary in these photos overall, quite obviously so. The photos don't do much for me when compared, for example, to the work of Jock Sturgess, which was less Hallmark-greeting-card-all-is-right-in-the-perfect-little-family and a bit more provocative even if not always successful to my eye. I thought Jock's was more mature and adult work. Not being challenged by these photos, I'm not all that moved by them, even though they are pleasing and well done enough.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Some nice captures, but I wonder how the viewers perception would change if they were shot in color and the children were all clothed.<br>

I did find a couple particularly moving, but overall, I agree with Fred and found them no more or less appealing than typical family snaps. Nearly all of us have a shot of ourselves as children or of our own children sitting naked in the bathtub. Many of this artists shots simply extend that beyond the tub. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bill, interestingly, I had thought about what challenges and depth color might have added to these photos as well. I think it might have helped. The photos made me think not only of Jock's work but of some of <a href="http://ryanmcginley.com/photographs/">RYAN McGINLEY'S</a> as well. McGinely seems to have utilized a color palette quite expressively which helps take his photos out of the ordinary, to me. Perhaps dealing with nude adolescents also provides some additional aesthetic and cultural challenges and his sense of color seems to echo and support some of that, IMO. When he uses black and white, therefore, it seems less a default mechanism to herald "artistry" and more an intentional expressive choice. The black and white in Laboille's work, on the other hand, seems only traditional and rather unexpressive.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I would not compare these photos with those of Jock Sturgess or Ryan McGinley, as proposed above by Fred, which in both cases are mostly known for highly posed shots? What is so refreshing with many of the <a href="https://www.lensculture.com/articles/alain-laboile-la-famille" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Laboille</a> shots are the spontaneous and natural feeling to them. A question of style, maybe, but certainly not a question of snapshots compared to more "mature and adult work" IMO.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred,<br>

Not being a student of other photographers, I can't comment on the work you cited nor can I access the link to Ryan here at work, but I wonder if the immages of Labiolle are perceived as special simply because they are in black and white and contain nudity or because of the scenes he captures and his composition. I like many of the shots, but would I like them any less if they were in color and contained no nudity? Guess we'll never know.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Should we describe these photos as 2/3 nude or 1/3 clothed? (Yes, I counted.) Everyone seems hung up on the nudity, but I think it has little to do with the success of most of these photos. This portfolio is a celebration of childhood. I can't say whether I prefer the nude ones to the clothed ones or vice versa. But I do enjoy the children being children. And being a cat person, I also love the children's cats being children's cats! :-)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well Sarah, I'm not a cat person, but I really enjoyed the photos that contained cats as well (though I don't hate cats either).</p>

<p>I'm not personally hung up on the nudity, but am curious as to how it impacts viewers' impressions of the shots. Nudity and B&W are often associated with being 'artsy,' so do people find these appealing at least partially becaue they are 'artsy,' or would they have the same reaction to the subject matter if there was no nudity and they were shot in color? As one who has three kids, all adults now (in age anyway), and many nieces and nephews, I have lots of snaps of children being children, so don't necessarily find these shots unique, which is not to say this photographer didn't do an excellent job of capturing the subject. I particularly like his composition.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sarah, mentioning or discussing nudity doesn't equate with being hung up on it. And not "everyone" seems even to have mentioned it.</p>

<p>Bill, when you're away from work, I hope you'll get a chance to look at Sturgess's and McGinley's work and see if you find interesting points of comparison and contrast.</p>

<p>I understand your concern about black and white appearing on the surface to be more "artsy." That wasn't so much my impression here. I was just thinking that good color work here might have added an important expressive dimension and that the black and white work felt utilitarian and not all that expressive.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Laboille's work immediately reminded me of Ian Taylor's kids photography which I've always enjoyed and admired. Be sure to click on the thumbnails for a large view:<br>

<a href="http://iantaylor.ca/">http://iantaylor.ca/</a></p>

<p>Ian shoots commercially so there will be restrictions placed on his capability but nevertheless both portfolios, in my view, captured the spirit of childhood in ways that everyone will be able to relate. </p>

<p>I've dabbled in kids photography for fun at a time when my primary interest was landscapes, and it was only then did I realize how challenging it was to capture the essence of childhood. I had to be a kid and think like a kid just to get into the swing of things while carrying pounds of gear, but it was one of the most enjoyable experiences I've ever had in photography. I would love to do it again if the opportunity presents itself. It'll give me a chance to play "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc9l6TCdKpw">Kick the Can</a>" and be a kid all over again. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The so-called "essence" of childhood isn't one-dimensionally pretty, prancing, or smiley-faced, or cloyingly teary-eyed for that matter. Some of <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=diane+arbus+kids&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=bi4GU_O-MdXioATjh4DoBg&ved=0CC8QsAQ&biw=1920&bih=1102">Arbus's</a> work also catches the "essence" of childhood. IMO, these are all perspectives on and interpretations of childhood, having not much to do with essences.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Note, for instance, the differences between a <a href="http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_357_394980_diane-arbus.jpg">CRYING CHILD</a> by Arbus and a CRYING CHILD (I can't seem to isolate its link, but it's number 6 out of the series) by Laboille. The latter seems, despite its being candid, to show a romanticized view of a child crying. A lot of this is due to the lovely (beautiful, romantic) lighting, which really glosses over the actual pain or sadness the child may be feeling. Arbus's capture seems to have more soul and depth of emotion behind it, and I think the somewhat more confrontational and less flattering perspective and the harsher or at least more raw overall treatment help express that.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It might be of interesst for some of you that Jock Sturges was a pn member for some time, but got "driven" away by photo.net rules. He deleted the photos in his portfolio but one and you can still follow the comments and the discussion: http://www.photo.net/photos/jocksturges<br>

I enjoyed the photos of Laboile but certainly find more importance in the work of Sturges. His body of work stresses in my opinion not so much child nudity, but the way adults and children sort of live their nudity in a protected environment. Another photographer that came to my mind is Mona Kuhn http://monakuhn.com/</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>FRED: I'm just not buying your thesis. Sure, Diane Arbus has a bit more of the <em>naif</em> about it, but both seem to accurately reflect similar experiences. I don't see <a href="https://www.lensculture.com/articles/alain-laboile-la-famille#slide-6">Laboille's</a> image as 'romanticized'. I like a lot of Arbus's work, but when people tell me how much she empathized with her subjects, I roll my eyes just a little.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...