I have a strong opinion about this essay in the NYT "Obama's People"

<p>Before I get carried away, some may find this essay of interest:</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/magazine/2009-inauguration-gallery/index.html</p>

<p>... t</p>

<p>Visually? "photo-booth" comes to mind...</p>

<p>They must all be clever, because they shure ain't been chosen for their looks.</p>

<p>The photograpger described an almost torturous regiment of how the subject was introduced to the photo shoot, that was in teresting. In any case, the results seemd quite natural, umblemished, and intreresting to look at. I guess that is the art involved, how to get 50 people to enter the camera space and have the result be interesting to look at.</p>

<p>I liked it. Reminded me of Richard Avedon's work. Stripped down, real. Un-messed-with.</p>

<p>I like the series a LOT.</p>

<p>Fresh administration; fresh portraiture - both casting away approaches of the past. The series has a great informal and approachable character to it. Very befitting the new administration.</p>

<p>I like the white Avedon-esque background; amplifying gestures and forcing subjects to adopt to the confines of the area. But glad Kander did not go further capturing the subjects in the way Avedon, Newman, and Karsh would have; myself thinking about how Avedon captured Nixon's advisors and other politicians...</p>

<p>As official portraits go, they are not particularly flattering. But it sure qualifies as open, forthright and honest.<br>

I kind of got a kick out of the guy who went for the cookies (America's main comfort food!.), and I thought it was really telling the stance that (General) Jones was in compared to the casual and almost slouchy posture of most of the others - all those years of military practice produce a very marked "at attention" pose without him realizing it.</p>

<p>I think they look the images were made with a copier machine, and the lighting was more suitable to copy work of two dimensional subjects than of the complex humans that were subjected to that cattle call... I've seen better work done with a couple of SBs on a street corner.</p>

<p>The skin tones sucked (like plastic), over sharpened and, I suspect, too much "Clarity" from LR. The people all looked like they were taxidermied (is that a word?) and the style was totally a 21st century cliche' that was worn out several years ago. Most portraiture in the NYT magazine and paper is just great. This was a huge disppointment to me.</p>

<p>The ONLY resemblance to Avedon's work is the white background. Look at his images of political figures of the 60s and 70s and you'll see how badly done "The Obama People" is by comparison. Artless... t</p>

<p>See <a> Avedon's portrait of Karl Rove</a> ... t</p>

<p>Jeeze... <a href="http://www.corcoran.org/avedon/gallery.htm#gallery/images/020.jpg">try again</a> ... t</p>

<p>Reagan, Buckley, Hiss, Kissinger are all there, too... t</p>

<p>being a professional in the newspaper photographer realm, it's brilliant work. if you look at each photo, there are subtle differences in each person's pose, mannerisms, etc. that round out each person's personality. simple, yet effective.</p>

<p>>>> Look at his images of political figures of the 60s and 70s and you'll see how badly done "The Obama People" is by comparison.</p>

<p>And it was certainly not his intent not to follow in the footsteps of all the *traditional* portrait photographers of the past; including Avedon.</p>

<p>As much as I am a huge admirer of Avedon's work (over many disciplines and decades), I can't imagine doing Obama's advisors in that manner. Would have been a huge mistake. Was great for Nixon's advisors back then (Kissinger, The Mission Council, etc...). Nice that he broke from past traditions; like the administration itself. I enjoy the freshness of both.</p>

<p>>>> As official portraits go...</p>

<p>But they're not official portraits. NYT Magazine...</p>

<p>so did Avedon interact with his subjects the same way? the photographer indicates that the result of the image is a spontaneous interaction with the subject. These images are in color, "in color" has many distractions, but in these images you do get a real sense of the person, but, only in the context of all fifty. Take Eugene Kang's and Ellen Moran's portraits, remove them from this context and I don't think they will resonate as well.</p>

<p>The comparison to Avedon's Power Portraits (now exibiting at the Corcoran) was raised by the NYT article about behind the scenes. It would not otherwise have appeared to me as a stylistic homage, at all. I think the treatment is trendy and inappropriate to the subject... t</p>

<p>Wow- I think they are some of the worst portraits I have ever seen. If I were Avedon and somebody told me they were like his, I'd be pissed...</p>

<p>*Thank* you!... t</p>

<p>>>> If I were Avedon and somebody told me they were like his, I'd be pissed...<br>

<br /> Except nobody is making that claim. Only someone familiar with Avedon's work in the most superficial sense (ie a white background being employed) would even suggest that. <br /> <br /> There is no claim anywhere, by Kander, the NYT director of photography, or the NYT Magazine's editor that the goal of the set of portraits was to be in a style similar to Avedon's. <br /> <br /> People forget that Avedon's In the American West portraits were harshly criticized when unveiled in the 1980s; not just for his unpopular unglamorous depiction of "the West," but on the style and extreme and somewhat fictional representation of his subjects. Also, Avedon's motivation for shooting against a white background was much different than that stated by Kander.</p>

 

<p>Sorry but the images doesn't quite evoke any emotion from me. Unlike those from Richard Avedon. Just look at most of the crop in the portraits. Is doesn't have that "in your face" feeling of power of any kind from these people. The photographer made the general looked like a geek. There are very subtle perspective differences in Avedon's portraits that create the emotion. This NYT photographer failed in my humble opinion.</p>

<p>Thanks for the link. I liked many of these individually and the group as a whole. I agree with many of the above positive comments, in terms of naturalness and personality of subjects coming through. Additionally, I think the lighting (from below?) that casts the slight background shadow is unique and very interesting. I found many differences between the portraits and wonder how boilerplate the above negative reactions are. Any you liked?</p>

<p>Please don't mention the name of Richard Avedon in association with these images. Avedon was one of America's greatest photographic artists and these images are pathetic in comparison.<br>

-O</p>

<p>Brad... I'll quote the editor of the NYT, Gerald Marzorati, and please note sentence one, paragraph two:</p>

<p>"EARLY IN 1976 , with both the post-Watergate presidential election and the bicentennial celebration in mind, Rolling Stone approached <a title="More articles about Richard Avedon." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/richard_avedon/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Richard Avedon.">Richard Avedon</a> , America’s most celebrated portrait photographer of the time, with the idea of spending the year shooting pictures on the campaign trail. Avedon had other ideas, or, better, a bigger idea: To photograph the men and women he understood to constitute the political leadership of the United States. The result, published in Rolling Stone’s Oct. 21, 1976, issue and taking up the entire feature well of the magazine, was a portfolio of 73 black-and-white portraits — formal, frank in a stylized way and, page after page after page, thoroughly absorbing.</p>

<p>It was with that project very much in mind that The Times Magazine asked Nadav Kander — one of the more original and highly regarded portraitists at work just now — if he would like to photograph the administration of <a title="More articles about Barack Obama" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Barack Obama">Barack Obama</a> as it was being assembled."</p>

<p><a href="http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/new_official_portrait_released/">Here is Obama's official portrait</a> , the first Presidential portrait, I think, shot with a DSLR... t</p>

<p>which is like the polar opposite of <a href="http://www.nadavkander.com/">Nadav Kandar's work</a> , which I think is killer stuff.</p>

<p>I just think it was the wrong choice by the NYT photo editor, which is even more shocking to me. I have always thought their photo editing choices were some of the best in news publishing.</p>

<p>I have been inspired for years by the work shown in the NYTimes, so I was really surprised by this pairing. NK is a known quantity, who carefully matches tone and color to the subject and demeanor of his subjects. I just think that choice was inappropriate for the task of creating portraits of 50 really different people in a very brief period on one day in the midst of an extremely busy schedule... t</p>