Actually I like them. The photos make them more human, like they are one of us who manage to make it to the top. The torn papers/backgrounds tell me that they have to work hard, even for simply thing as to be photographed. Public medias want to make them heros, and regardless of the photographer's intention to market himself or not, I agree with...
"'I think he must be making a statement about the way society paints athletes as perfect. Showing flaws in the photos to illustrate the fact that they are people, not gods. The mistakes are intentional. Especially considering about half could be fixed by any redditor that has Photoshop.'"
I have no portrait experience beyond photographing my children, and I could've done better than that!! He's either seriously awful, or like Chris said, he's clever like a fox!
My 8 yr old would know what's wrong with the lighting etc, in these pics, and how to improve them. With this 'photographer' I think, too, that it must a publicity thing. Clever marketing!
I agree that the photographer is doing something intentional here, however I don't completely buy the idea that the photos as a group were intended "to illustrate that they (they athletes ) are humans not gods." The photo of Michael Phelps DOES make him look human. Phelps looks like of lonely. However, the photo of the female fencer seems to be making a different statement altogether. She has a giant American flag right behind her and her face is completely covered by a flag so that she cannot even see. Figure out the symbolism for yourself. In any case, different photos seem to be making different statements, some of them political.
The thing is about something like this...everyone has an opinion. I think what bothers me personally is so many people saying, "These are awful, I could've done better." By whose interpretation of "better"? I work in publishing. Believe me, "photographers" are a dime a bazillion. As are opinions.
These photos obviously deviate from the acceptable, cookie-cutter perfect, taught-in-photo-classes theory of eveyone-should-do-it-this-way "good" portraiture. Is that a bad thing? A lot of very opinionated ("I coulda done better") people think so.
Did the person or entity who/that commissioned these photos get what he/they wanted from the work? My guess (as someone who works in publishing) is that he/they did, since the photos are out there, published.
Do I personally think they're good photos? Not all of them, no. But I see a LOT of highly touted "good" photos that I don't care for one bit.
I would be interested to read what the photographer's approach to the shoot was, and what his response is to this opinionated backlash against the images. Until then, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I find it amusing that they say the Americans are all crazy over these pictures we've never even seen lol...it hasn't been a story here at all. But they are really bad, I'm not seeing some artistic political statement but I suppose you can make it up to mean something or another. He got someone to talk about him I suppose.
If you took the time to look at his portfolio and some of his other stuff, you would know that this guy is bloody talented. He is not someone who would make some of these 'mistakes' unless he intended to. Not awful photos, either a statement, a marketing strategy or art gone wrong.
Photography is art. What one person likes another will not. I think it's an amazing statement and has created much discussion...good and bad... so all in all the imgaes are being seen...and maybe more so than if they were the so called picture perfect image :)
Art is a means of personal expression. Using torn background paper as a means of self-expression is fair enough; it could be interpreted as "an energy" that breaks through the "paradigm"... Good luck to him. Personally I think the images are uninspiring and technically awful, but that's my right. I guess he's not very good under pressure.
@andycoleborn The link the OP posted is an article from today, in which there is new information and analysis. People apparently have more to say. This seems okay to me.
I had looked at them the other day, and really liked the one of the male gymnast. The quote on the picture here said "his incredible muscles were overshadowed by a rip in the paper" Really? A rip in the paper....I hadn't even noticed until it was pointed out.
@vase I don't know, I kind of thought again? when I saw the new discussion. You guys are giving this photographer the attention he was seeking when he took those photos. @andycoleborn@chriswang
y'know... i get the point about portraying the athletes as real people, and not photoshopping them into godhood, and i think a couple of the photos achieve that (the gymnast one, for example) and there are some unconventional ones that i think are kinda cool (eg: the taekwondo kick)... but in some respects it feels as tho' the athletes end up looking like the victims of a bad photog, rather than just ordinary mortals...
that said, the explanation of the cattle call approach to this shoot may be part of the issue... and also, it sounds like maybe posed portraits are not his thing so much as candids... and maybe the last minute invite and the crazy concept for the shooting day just ticked him off and made him want to show 'em...
or, you know... maybe it's just art that isn't accessible to some of us...
which makes me wonder... where is the divide between the portrait photographer whose job it is to take photographs to sell to happy customers... and the artist who may see it as their job to push boundaries and provoke thought?
I hate to step out of line here...but...I like the majority of these pics. They are fresh and energised and have something to say about each athlete instead of the photoshoped synthetics which we normally see. It's good to see someone who does not hold athletes as immortals and can see their all too human sides.
Okay, now that I have seen what all the fuss is about, I have to agree with the majority. Photography is art and if he was trying to make them look less like "God's" than why was it necessary. We know they are all human! After looking at each shot, have the time you can's even see most of some of their faces, they are way to dark in different area's. I didn't like the set-up of a lot of the scenes. The one that showed the swimmer's black bottom of her bathing suit, made no sense. To me, most of the pictures didn't make any sense and if they paid him, no matter if they aren't the official ones, he got away with murder. Their's art and their's art and everyone is entitled to their opinion, mine is, it was a waste of money and I'm just glad that I wasn't one of the athlete's.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
"'I think he must be making a statement about the way society paints athletes as perfect. Showing flaws in the photos to illustrate the fact that they are people, not gods. The mistakes are intentional. Especially considering about half could be fixed by any redditor that has Photoshop.'"
While this is all over the internet, it seems to be missing from the real world, no one I know even knows about this.
The thing is about something like this...everyone has an opinion. I think what bothers me personally is so many people saying, "These are awful, I could've done better." By whose interpretation of "better"? I work in publishing. Believe me, "photographers" are a dime a bazillion. As are opinions.
These photos obviously deviate from the acceptable, cookie-cutter perfect, taught-in-photo-classes theory of eveyone-should-do-it-this-way "good" portraiture. Is that a bad thing? A lot of very opinionated ("I coulda done better") people think so.
Did the person or entity who/that commissioned these photos get what he/they wanted from the work? My guess (as someone who works in publishing) is that he/they did, since the photos are out there, published.
Do I personally think they're good photos? Not all of them, no. But I see a LOT of highly touted "good" photos that I don't care for one bit.
I would be interested to read what the photographer's approach to the shoot was, and what his response is to this opinionated backlash against the images. Until then, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
that said, the explanation of the cattle call approach to this shoot may be part of the issue... and also, it sounds like maybe posed portraits are not his thing so much as candids... and maybe the last minute invite and the crazy concept for the shooting day just ticked him off and made him want to show 'em...
or, you know... maybe it's just art that isn't accessible to some of us...
which makes me wonder... where is the divide between the portrait photographer whose job it is to take photographs to sell to happy customers... and the artist who may see it as their job to push boundaries and provoke thought?