Contemporary portraiture.

I beg you... <snip> I could continue but I have no spare time on it. Sorry, not my cup of tea.

Instead of addressing what I wrote, you copped out with a nice whiny bowl of obfuscatory buh blah, addressing only his style. Did you have a smoke after patting yourself on the back with that response?

No need to continue... What you wrote above, while adorable twaddle, is nothing more than how an unpleasant child deals with a plate of broccoli at the dinner table.

Platon’s portraits are rather mundane (not saying anything about the work it takes to get them) and do have this veneer of the celebrity superficial. Another portrait photographer who has photographed celebrities and rockstars, etc but who cuts deeper below the surface is Anton Corbijn.

Below the surface? No, not even close. As a portraitist he has a fine body of work but they’re pretty much forgettable. That’s not meant to be a diss, but speaks to others’ work that’s very memorable, revealing their subject’s character.

Pfff, Platon is the one who is forgettable (magazine portraiture) when compared to Corbijn. So there. Corbijn is a far greater photographer and maker of images.

Holy smokes! Your response reminds me of high school: Chevys rule, Fords drool. Or something like that.

Have a good one!

Anton Corbin, Platon, have both a unique style.

Platon, for want of a better phrase, has a subtle catch light to his portraiture, in a metaphorical sense.

The singular capture of a subtle moment.

Corbijn is a photographer's photographer,

Oh...a photographer's photographer. How could I possibly disagree when such astonishing intellectual heft is brought to bear? A winner has been declared.

So why don't you go back to school if you care to learn something?

My, such a juvenile comeback. I love the irony.

Instead of addressing what I wrote, you copped out with a nice whiny bowl of obfuscatory buh blah, addressing only his style. Did you have a smoke after patting yourself on the back with that response?

 

No need to continue... What you wrote above, while adorable twaddle, is nothing more than how an unpleasant child deals with a plate of broccoli at the dinner table.

Knowing some people in his portfolio, and knowing their "talents" I say you, - his portrait of Dimon is just empty (it can be easily made by me (really I took better portraits) or every 1st year student of art school coz Dimon wears that serious "face" on every party meeting and taking shots of "P**sy Riot" he took portraits of talentless, voiceless young women who mean nothing, but a hordid fuss over nothing. Don't believe? Watch their videos. Did you ever? For me his choice of "prominent" figures tells a lot. McCaretney, Jagger, Kusturica and many others who denied him were lucky.

Why are you using ad hominem attacks if you are an intelligent person?

P.S. I don't smoke at all. Tastes differ. If you know something that we don't know explain us the sacred sense of his talent. His style was a kinda wowzer in early 2000s' but now it mostly look like obsolete garbage with all those pitiable kitschy vignettes, like a pager or Motorola Razr, in 20 years will be forgotten like all that pitiable swarm of polititicians.

So, the conclusion - I abhor empty portraits of empty people.

Anton Corbijn

He is a great master. On the same level as Penn (to me).

I abhor empty portraits of empty people.

You don't like his subjects - that pretty much sums it up.