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

[Brad_]

<p>Tom, I read the same story earlier and think you're misunderstanding it. *Nowhere* does it say the goal was to produce a set of portraits in Avedon's style.</p>

<p>Rather, the goal was to have a set of portraits of Obama's advisors. As Avedon created a set of political portraits decades earlier. If the earlier portraits had been Arnold Newman's (instead of Avedon's) would you similarly conclude Kander and the NYT's goal was to create a set of portraits in Newman's style?</p>

[twmeyer]

<p>If they said, "...with Newman's essay in mind..." I certainly would. I mean, why even mention that if it's not to invoke those images? And all this Avedon reference is only an incidental aggravation.</p>

<p>My main objection is to the pairing of this artist with this subject. He is famous for unrealistic skin tones and a very personal rendering of appearance that has little to do with what his subject actually look like. He tries to evoke a dramatic rendering of a state of mind that is particular to certain individuals.</p>

<p>In this essay, we have a constant effect applied indiscriminately to every one from a delicately beautiful, intensely intelligent young black woman to a 65 year old ex Marine General. So many have that "deer in the headlights/ is this over yet" look in their eyes, it's just painful.</p>

<p>They look like over processed, slightly mis-timed drivers license photos made under copy lights with no consideration of the subjects, only a slavish adherence to the process, regardless of the effect... t</p>

<p>I just noticed it was done over three days in three cities... t</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> If they said, "...with Newman's essay in mind..." I certainly would. </p>

<p>It wasn't the style being referred to - it's not even close - only in the most superficial sense being the photos were set against a white background. You honestly think that was the goal? And somehow Kander and the NYT editors couldn't have hit the mark closer (missing some things; B&W, tighter crops, etc)? </p>

<p>It was the fact that an important body of work of politicians was created decades ago; a first by a photographer (and it happened to be Avedon). And the NYT wanted to create another of the new administration, similar in scope and importance. Not to create an Avedon look-alike set of portraits dating back to the '60s. Times change. Fortunately views about portraiture change as well.</p>

[paul_b._davis1]

<p>Wow--There seems to be quite an amount of harsh criticism here!</p>

<p>So they're not flattering fashion portraits with umpteen carefully positioned studio strobes and a flag in the background... So what? They're informal, harsh, and have a totally unique feel that you can't just chalk up to "bad work." Some of this collection may be the only shots you see of these people outside of ultra-formal business portraiture or street photojournalism.</p>

<p>This is a totally different look and feel than you'd see with this kind of group of subjects, and I think it's just unusual, which clearly makes people uncomfortable. Maybe they should have called in a LifeTouch photographer from the local middle school? Would that work better for you?</p>

<p>Honestly, people--It's just a different style. Somebody said these are "the worst portraits [they'd] ever seen." Come on. Really?</p>

<p>I think "the worst portrait [you've] ever seen" was probably taken in a dark, busy restaurant with on-camera flash and a semi-black background. Or how about your classic myspace party P&S snap? Are those better than the latest stuff out of The New York Times?</p>

<p>What a bunch of rubbish.</p>

 

[razzledog]

<p>I think classy portraits of Obama and his staff would have been more preferable. <br /> Tom, I agree, it looks like a typical driver's licence shoot. I've seen similar startled faces on kangaroos in the headlights whilst driving through central Queensland at night...not at all what I would have expected. <br /> I think the whole exercise is rather disappointing to say the least....some guys even resemble cartoon characters. If that's the modern 'digital look' I'm gonna stick with film.</p>

[tommy_zablan2]

<p>In a way, I agree with you Tom. However, I cannot deny what the other posters have stated about the shots having a distinct style. It's definitely there.<br>

The formula is not exactly new...make the subjects uncomfortable in a small space, flat lighting, and somehow try to capture the slight discomfort in the poses and gestures. On the other hand, I can say, with a straight face and absolute certainty - that I can do ten times better than than the NYT photographer and all I would need is this;<br>

http://purikura.org/<br>

...10 times better because they wouldn't have all the personalized writing, instant effects, and of course, the automatic changing background. ;)</p>

 

[rich_evans]

<p>Perfect driver's license photos - its a style I guess........ --Rich</p>

[warrenlewis]

<p>Actually, they seem more appropriate in the context of the entire article, rather than as a stand alone group of photos.</p>

[georg_langs]

<p>I think the are very very good, in my opinion! They remind me a bit of elsa dorfmans work.</p>

[jim_winters]

<p>very cool...interesting...different...isnt that what takin pics is all about?</p>

[pclancy]

<p>One of those projects where you can do no wrong. Seems very blah and cliché to me. The naration is amusing.....so sensational. <br>

</p>

[gnphotography]

Looks like cut and paste of previous photos with a little drop shadow thrown in. It seems to me I,ve seen a few of these photos before. Hmmmmm?

[martin_vanmeter1]

<p>back in the pre-historic past, when I worked part-time for a daily city newspaper, this type of photography was "stand'em and grim'em".....the very least desirable form of capturing an image and usually resulted in a brief one-way discussion with the chief photographer. 8-{<br>

To call it anything other than quicky, expendible photography is over generous. With the big O's political savy, I find it hard to believe he approved this crap.</p>

 

[longname]

<p>I think the portraits were great, the personalities carry through and you get a generalized feel of who the person is. <br /> Rahm Emanuel hands on hips, all business to the point.<br /> David Axelrod relaxed and casual.<br /> Gen. Jones in the Marine Corps position of attention.<br /> My favorite though was the special assistant to the President. Haha, didn't even have time to pose, has to see what else is coming up in the appointment book.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I thought the pictures were good in the NYT story. Just the idea of seeing these people and learning who they are was interesting. Some of those folks will probably never really be in the spotlight unless something goes horribly wrong. Considering they're ordinary people with extraordinary employment; they're not professional models; we could second-guess the portrait session with a list of other shots he could have taken, or how those could have been improved; but it is what it is. Next picture. What's wrong with that?</p>

<p>I found it a little disturbing that some people were looking away from the camera. Since these are politicians, I wondered if it was, like, are these people not willing to face the viewer? Probably was just built that way, but that was really the only thing I felt beyond being intrigued about who these people were. </p>

<p>Tom, I think mentioned that he liked the work Kandar. What did y'all like about it? When I looked over the link to Kandar's portfolio; well, he has excellent grouping. There are a lot of shots which are presented together; that sets up a theme; but the shots themselves look kind of like rejectable snapshots. It seems like there's a lot of magic in the presentation more than there is in the composition of the individual photos. Hey, more power to the guy, but if that name of the picture had been mine, and I had turned in a bunch of shots of an overpass, y'all wouldn't hesitate to call out "3/3" on a critique, if you looked over it at all.</p>

<p>Seems like there are tungsten films in there; or a similar style of color balance adjustment; maybe made to look like XPRO; other than that, I didn't really see anything super great about it. Most of the action in there seemed to be in the comprehensive set of visualizations (like, who is going to make a bunch of pictures of living room windows, etc.) and the grouping of presentation.</p>

<p>I don't mean to be crass, but sometimes when I see work like this, and it's some kind of high-priced deal; it just gives me hope for the future. I know that there's kind of a randomness about the fashion of financial success in the arts, but really; as far as the pictures themselves go, a random selection from the critique gallery would probably do better with me.</p>

<p>What's in there that seems so great, Tom? I guess these don't look like "snapshots" to your eyes. What are you seeing in there (in the linked portfolio) that you find intriguing? I didn't see "it." What is "it", that's in there?</p>

[juans eye]

<p>The Rahm portrait is pretty good. Gives me a "business" vibe. Some of them were alright.<br>

The Avedon portrait of Karl Rove throws me totally off. I know the Big A is the benchmark, but what does the portrait truly say about the person, or what "truth" is being conveyed?<br>

I'm not criticizing the art, I just don't get it, and I don't get a lot of things.<br>

/bing</p>

[macwest]

<p>They are Horrible!</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>I saw this series of portraits a few days ago and I think I am just "getting it". A portrait is supposed to show us the "real person". I've taken plenty of snapshots (as a few of us have suggested these are) of people who I know and "ordinary people" as was suggested in the audio, but they hardly ever look so ... awkward. Now, not all of them look so horrible. In fact, I think several shots of the women look quite nice.<br>

What do these portraits say? Do they reflect the photographer's skill (yes I figure he is using a special technique) or are they somehow a window into these people's personality? </p>

<p>I kind of understand the venom being directed at these photos and the photographer. I however think it would be appropriate to express what that understanding is in private conversation, not here.</p>

 

[greg jansen]

<p>I don't like them at all. They are all dull and uninteresting. I don't see any great "capture their personality" moments in there.<br>

I understand the logistical constraints placed the photographer, I.E. no studio, limited time, etc. Because of those constraints it seems he took the safe route in regards to lighting. Dull, safe, uninteresting.<br>

I don't see any risk-taking at all. It seems the photographer lost trust in himself and blew an opportunity to do something with a bit more personality.<br>

His lack of trust in himself also showed in when he tripped the shutter. I see late timing in all the shots. That one millisecond where the person's personality comes out was missed.<br>

I wish him better luck on his next project.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<blockquote>

<p>They are all dull and uninteresting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The pictures or the subjects?</p>

[greg jansen]

<p>The pictures. Everyone has some sort of personality or character in them. A good photograph captures that personality.<br>

I.M.O. the photos don't express much about the subjects. I don't think they are very good photographs.</p>

[lomografieur]

<p>When I first starting going through them, I thought....What is this junk? But they started to grow on me and when thought of as a project, not individual images, it is quite impressive. Many of the shots are telling the story of the individual in one snapshot, if you will!<br>

Secondly, the diversity of age, sex and color is impressive....Just a thought, not a political statement!<br>

Jim</p>

[greg jansen]

<p>The pictures. Everyone has some sort of personality or character in them. A good photograph captures that personality.<br>

I.M.O. the photos don't express much about the subjects. I don't think they are very good photographs.</p>

[danbliss]

<p>I have to say that I really liked the portraits. They were certainly not the "pretty" portraits that we are used to from political figures. They were full of quirks and character, simply displayed. The post processing emphasized their flaws rather than covered them up. It worked for me. Of course, if someone takes my portrait, I wanted it heavily "air brushed." :-) Dan</p>

[doug_santo]

<p>Flat, poorly executed, unflattering for the subjects. Not very good.</p>