For example besides his commercial work Estevan Oriol has some great photos on L.A and gang life and skid row which are very powerful and can be (I think) closely associated with the work of Dorothea Lange and her work during the depression.
Yeah, I think thats quite the reach in the comparison but I understand what your saying and there plenty of art photographers who do commercial work. There is Brooklyn photographer Boogie who did a series on brownsville and the gangs, drugs, etc. surround that area of Brooklyn and he sold some of the images to Nike for their geodome boot ad campaign, but the guy is an art photographer first and foremost. And clearly there will be people who do both and thats their move.Quote:
True they may shoot a celebrity for a particular magazine but their style is consistent throughout. Now not saying its no art in them I have to disagree I mean I understand its your opinion but I look at(portrait and celebrity photography) it as another extension of photography.
See but their is an inherent arguement as to it not being art (which you can not agree with thats fine...) because it lacks a conceptual nature behind it. Like a portrait of a celebrity whats the concept? Idolization? somehow I doubt. But I would really be curious to know some of these people's answers to that question... The fact that its an extension of photography is irevelvant to me, because I think there are plenty of great photographs that lack an artistic nature but are still great photos. I think when great artists photographers to whatever conceptualize an idea in a body of work it goes well beyond the photograph used in a magazine for the interview of some actor.
They're great photographs and I don't want to take that from them, but there is legitimate arguement that a significant portion of commercial photography is not art or art as most of the art world defines art...Quote:
What makes photography so interesting is that you can photograph whatever, whenever and manipulate it and make it your own.
I've always been told photography is the most democratic of arts and i'm not trying to say otherwise... I just think there is inherent conflict of interest in commercial photography as far as your buyer dictating your subject.
Like take an album cover, clearly there is a concept in most, but it putting the cart before the horse to argue the photograph dictates the album, you're just embodying some elses idea into a image, which I think is valid but is second rate to your own conception from an artistic stand point. and to argue the album cover is art beyond that of the album it think is a reach.
But anyhow, I don't really want to go on and on about this we can agree to disagree thats fine... it doesnt particularly bother me...