Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by ruslan, Jul 1, 2019.
Platon rings my bells.
Some impressive works I dig his "My niece, Bowling Green" and "Venice Beach"
Esquire style. 50 mm close-up with dramatic lighting. His fashion-esque works is kitsch and pop-art in the same bottle.
I can see where someone might say that taking no more than a superficial look, not understanding the potential and depth of what can be revealed through portraiture.
I beg you... I guess I gave it short but just right definition.
His Pamela Anderson and Steven Spielberg are pure kitch/pop art. Erdogan is shot as if he had been shot for the passport. Graphic harsh light, vignettes move us to mid 2000s...
The so-called strenght of his works is famous personalitties, celebrities. Known by nobody P***y Riot could sell themselves to the West. How are they doing? In Russia, I tell you there much more intellectual and talented people that those two upstarts. How are their career progressing in the West after kicking up meaningless fuss in the church? Roger Stone and Carter look like Avedon's works plagiarism. 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.
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.
Holy smokes! Your response reminds me of high school: Chevys rule, Fords drool. Or something like that.
Have a good one!
Anton Corbijn. I like his portrait work, a lot.
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.
Oh...a photographer's photographer. How could I possibly disagree when such astonishing intellectual heft is brought to bear? A winner has been declared.
My, such a juvenile comeback. I love the irony.
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.
He is a great master. On the same level as Penn (to me).
You don't like his subjects - that pretty much sums it up.
Separate names with a comma.