Fine Art, Documentary or commercial photographers from 1970 to the present day

1970 - 1980s

Bob Mazzer
Use to work a job where he had had chance to be around the train stations around London late at night and this is where he managed to get unique urban photos of all ages. My favourite photo would the one of the three young men showing off there tattoos, I think he must have had a a lot of confidence to approach them as they look quite intimidating even though they might be really polite young men.    

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536638/London-Underground-life-caught-camera-1970s-80s.html

2012

George Chamoun is an artist from Sweden who started of training to be a jewellery designer but couldn't resist trying out other things. I really like his work where he combines old photos of celebrities with modern day celebrities. It looks really well done, as the hairlines and jaw lines match really well.

'I've always been the kind of person that does a lot of different things when it comes to art. It was three years ago that I came to the point in my life where I decided that my artistry had to take some sort of direction. But I think I've come to the conclusion that I can't limit myself in that way.'

He use to be a photographer but with his passion to try out different techniques he got drawn away from the photography to try out new experimental skills.

'Yes, I used to work as a photographer but felt it lacked some of the creativity... you know, just pushing a button. I wanted to work more actively with my hands and now I am.'

I think his artwork shows a great contrast between old and new, with the new photos being in colour and the old in black and white. It shows the change in photography and how its moved on but neither is better that the other.

http://www.lomography.com/magazine/lifestyle/2014/01/02/then-and-now-george-chamouns-impressive-iconatomy-series

Bibliography For Research

DURDEN, M. (2006) Dorothea Lange. Phaidon Press. Oxford.

MARTIN, T. (1999) Essential Surrealists. Dempsey Parr. Bath.

WILLUMSON, G.G. (1992) W. Eugene Smith and the Photographic Essay. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge

LESKO, L. (2007) Advertising Photography: A Straightforward Guide to a Complex Industry. Athens, University of Georgia Press. Georgia.

JEFFREY, I. (1999) Revisions: An Alternative History of Photography. The National Museum of Photography, Film & Television. Bradford.

PARKINSON, D. (1995) History of Film. Thames & Hudson. London.

SANDLER, M.W. (2009) The Dust Bowl Through The Lens: How Photography Revealed and Helped Remedy a National Disaster. Walker. New York.

MURRAY, P. and Murray, L. (1985) The Art of the Renaissance. Reprint edn. Thames & Hudson. London.

MILLER, R. (1997) Magnum: Fifty Years at the Front Line of History - the Story of the Legendary Photo Agency. Martin Secker & Warburg. London.

TESCH, J. and Hollmann, E. (eds.) (1997) Icons of Art : The 20th Century. Prestel-Verlag. Germany.

BOOT, C. (1993) Great Photographers of World War II. Bison Books Ltd. London

YENTOB, A. (2003) Imagine (The World According to Parr) [DVD]. BBC. UK.

YENTOB, (2002) Fame Fashion & Photography: The Real Blow Up [DVD]. BBC2. UK.

LESKO, L. (2007) Advertising Photography: A Straightforward Guide to a Complex Industry. Athens, University of Georgia Press. Georgia.

BUD, R. (2000) Inventing The Modern World: Technology Since 1750. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. London.

Youth Culture

I had recently watched a documentary called 'Fame Fashion and Photography: The Real Blow Up' it concentrated a lot on the behaviour of young up and coming fashion photographers and how they were seen as celebrities just as much as models and actors.

In the 1950s and 60s there wasn't really teams that produced a shoot, it was the photographer and the model and that was all. It didn't really matter about anyone else because it took much more understanding and technique to get the photos correct more so than now as it was all in film.
David Bailey was a one of the big names around at the time and being a young adult he was portrayed as a breath of fresh air to fashion photography. He was also seen as a bit of a misfit to the industry due to his behaviour towards his models, it was seen as unprofessional but in the end it got him great pictures as the models felt relaxed like they could have fun on a set.

The fashion in the 1960s was very much Mods V Rockers. It was all about if you had a motorbike and a scooter, if you work leather jackets or green parkers and most of all what music you were into. The difference between the two gangs appearances would be that Mods look like approachable people with their clean cut fashion and scooters. Rockers on the other hand seemed intimidating with all the black clothes and loud motorbikes. But when it came to fighting they were just as bad as each other.     

http://rideatriumph.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/3929-TRI_ModsRockersLogo_RAT.jpg

These are just some of the other factors that portrayed the way youth culture was starting to look.

Gangs – because of different style teenagers came across as thugs. They had fights for no reason and the older generation thought it looked silly having scraps about minor situations.

Smoking advertisement – teenagers wanted to smoke to look cool like the Marlboro man or James dean. This image was a little different to ‘the American dream’ that was so well know. This gave teenagers a tougher image.

Films - In films it was always the teenagers getting into trouble and the older generation having to sort them out and get them straightened up.

Fashion - Teens were coming up with there own styles rather than dressing like their parents and this started with more youthful and playful look, but slowly started to define the type of person you were and who you might become.

Advertisement - Rather than all laughing and smiling posters of young people like the ‘American dream’ posters young people started looking more serious and unwelcoming.

Surrealism

 Surrealism is a very odd form of artwork, it features strange forms of nudity and sexual activity. It is a form of art that is produced from the subconscious mind; I don’t think anyone can truly interpret some of the pieces as the are just so abstract, even though you can tell what the shapes are and it might be clear what objects the shapes represent, there is no way of telling why the thing in the image are there. As it’s an interpretation of someone’s subconscious thoughts and I don’t even think the person who created the picture can be 100% sure of what is coming across in the image. I’m curious how these artist choose the colours that go into there work and why? There is also a fine line between expressionism and surrealism.  

Sexuality comes across in Surrealism work a lot, for example in Salvador Dalis work 'The Great Masturbator,1929' it is mentioned that Dali had 'childhood fantasies of being eaten, as well as 'recalling an childhood pleasure and eating locusts.' I think this is strangely portrayed in his work but if I didn't know a bit about his childhood I defiantly wouldn't have understood why there was a locust in the form of the mail genitals.

Photographic documentary in the Second World War

I have been reading a book on the magnum institution and it sounds like it's a huge privilege to be a part of, especially after going through all these different stages with different portfolios.

In the book it mainly talked about how the institution was ran but it did mention a few things that caught my eye on the war photography. Like it mentioned that cameras should be seen as a powerful tool as they are the 'eyes of the world' and I think that statement is so true as it only takes one person to go and take a photo, but that photo could be shown to the world. Even though the rest of the people viewing the war photos can't smell or really feel a true likeness to what it might have really been like being there in that environment but at least you can see a small in site to what a glimpse is like.

Another quote is one from Robert Capa 'If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough.'
I watched a documentary on James Nachtway a magnum photographer, and I think he defiantly took this on board. As he gets close to the people war has affected and even though it looks a bit disrespectful photographing people morning over loved ones that have just been killed, but he approaches the people with a handshake and he is really calm and doesn't move very fast so he isn't disrupting anything or drawing attention to himself. So by being respectful of the families and what he photographs he is accepted and manages to take powerful images reflecting emotion and pain.

 I think this image and the next one are absolutely crazy. I can't even start to imagine what it might have actually been like taking the photos as he is in water to start with so he would have been trying to keep his camera safe but at the same time I would have thought that might have been the last of his worries as people would have been shot left right and center.

 I think Robert Capa has managed to capture the innocents of the people court up in war and how it  is really unfair for the communities that are stuck in the middel of it.










https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=robert+capa&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FxEXU5GgAoi6ygO1oYHoDg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=1003

The Dust Bowl

USA in the 1930s. This post is about what the Dust Bowl was and how photography played a part.
I wasn't really sure on what the dust bowl really was I only recognised pictures from that time. So I started reading a book called 'The Dust Bowl Trough the Lens'

It explains why the indulgent rich land had tern to dust. It was a combination of wheat prices rising and farmers getting the money for new machinery that could plough the land faster as well as still using horses. This was the start of the problem as they were ploughing the land so often it wouldn't get a change to settle and gain back its nutritional value. But farmers weren't worried, as the rain would give the land the life it needed. So as well as over ploughing the land they were also over grazing it as there was so much food for the cattle and sheep. But it soon ran out and yet again the farmers weren't worried, as the rain would sort the land out. Apart from the rain never came. Just more hot weather and high winds which turned the land to dust.    

This resorted to hundreds and thousands of people in a really tough situation, as they had to make a decision weather to take to the road and trail their families miles and miles to find a new environment to live or to stay and try to preserve their land. Either decision would suffer consequences as they could be waiting years for the rains to come and the land might already be so damaged it can't be restored. But then taking to the road to find a new liveable land might take weeks and there would have been so many possibilities that could have gone wrong like heat stroke, dehydration, famine or even facing sandstorms without proper shelter.

The most well know photographer to capture the nations hart about the dust bowl was Dorothea Lang. She took stunning documentary photos from portraits to signs. The most famous of her work would probably be the 'Migrant Mother' She took many photos of the same woman but it was when her two children burred there heads into there mother that is when you can tell out of all the images this one is the most powerful as can see on the mothers face that there is very little that she can do for her children.    

figure 1 
'Migrant Mother, Nipomo, California.
Dorothea Lang by Mark Durden 
page 19

Vermeer and Rembrandt

I am looking at the work of Vermeer and Rembrandt and seeing how they captured light in their work. 

I shall start with Vermeer. He wasn’t doing great in the world of art, as it was a very competitive industry to be in at the time. It wasn’t until he decided that he needed a really good piece of work to show to potential commissioned based costumers that he created his masterpiece ‘The Art Of Painting’. Even though he was living poorly with 11 children and the painting was worth a great deal he refused to sell it.

‘The Art Of Painting’ made Vermeer stand out from other artist as he managed to capture the reality of light in the painting. He picked up on the way light flooded through the window and lighted his subjects and every detail of the room. There was also the way he noticed how the light caused shadows, and how deep or shallow the light would make the shadows. This was a new thing in this age of painting and was the most realistic thing there would have been to a photograph. What’s more is that he even had things in and out of focus and that got people today thinking did he use a projector and if he did then the room and everything in it would have been real. But then there is the argument that he was an extremely poor man and he couldn’t afford barley anything in the painting.

Rembrandt worked to a huge scale as he could afford the materials and this became appealing for wealthier people to cover plain walls. The main thing though that Rembrandt is famous for is he lighting technique which is probably known by nearly every artist going. This is where you light the subjects face with one light and you cast a shadow across the opposite side of the face leaving one highlighted triangle under the eye. Its extremely flattering as the rest of the shadow blankets one side of the face falling down the middle of the lips and showing the curves on the face.

 

The similarities between the two painters was that they both manages to pick up on the realistic likeness in their work and that they were aware of shadows and highlights and how they created true likenesses at the time which would be remarkable to see in them days.

How have they both influenced todays culture? You can see both of there styles around today for example Vermeer his work of 'The Girl With The Purl Earring' has been made into a film with Scharlott Johnson and appears in other films such as St Trinians and Mr bean. Let alone been remade in lots of different styles. And Rembrandt famous lighting technique can been seen on a great deal of portraits and is used everyday. 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=st+trinians+girl+with+the+pearl+earring&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=h0_xUsuLKezA7Abjv4HYBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=480#q=st+trinians+the+girl+with+pearl+earring&tbm=isch

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+girl+with+the+pearl+earring+film&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=vlLxUoLaH6n07AbG-YDACQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=480#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=-RAKNd-KS9VmeM%253A%3B3Khbg9ZfDvFehM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fnormsonline.files.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F02%252F94-scarlett-johansson-girl-with-a-pearl-earring-vermeer.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fdaily-norm.com%252F2012%252F02%252F17%252Fdutch-masters-season-part-3-johannes-vermeer%252F%3B644%3B980

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=rembrandt+lighting&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=p1PxUsPOGuad7Qaeq4HYCQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=480#q=models+with+rembrandt+lighting&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=IWvJsyeRrQdjTM%253A%3B06EpaqSovrjh2M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F4.bp.blogspot.com%252F-GBKQdsFocro%252FUPwJBh-B35I%252FAAAAAAAAAbw%252FpC_uogI9ytw%252Fs1600%252Fman.JPG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ffionajohnsonhndphotography.blogspot.com%252F2013%252F01%252Fstudio-lighting-portrait-shoot-2.html%3B299%3B455

Leonardo Da Vinci

Carrying on from my post on the renaissance where I focusing on Michelangelo’s work, this one is going to be looking at Leonardo Da Vinci and more specifically his last supper masterpiece.

'The world of art library . history of art 

Peter and Linda Murry 

The art of the Renaissance 

p.239

215 Leonardo Da Vinci 

Last Supper' 

The Last Supper when it was completed was a grand piece of art, as it had been worked on for thee years it was finally revealed as an enormous painting covering the entire wall on the north side of the room in the monastery. This makes the characters larger than life size and I think this makes them appear greatly superior to whoever is in the room.

The painting is a single moment but tells a thousand stories. In a sense its seen as a snap shot of everyone eating at the last supper but then small gestures draw you into smaller stories about the individual disciples. For example there is John who was known at Christ’s most loved disciple and his head is wilted down with a sad expression this is because he will soon be morning at foot of Jesus’ cross.

Then there is the likes of Peter and he is holding a knife behind his back. This is to show that he will later cut off the ear of Malchus.

The most interesting disciple of the 12 in this painting for me is Judas, this is because at the dinner it is announced that one of the disciples will betray Jesus. This ends up being Judas. In the painting he is grasping a moneybag this is to represent greed. Leonardo Da Vinci has taken a different view on the supper as he has painted Judas on the same side of the table as everyone else. This was a little odd as everyone one els who had painted this scene has put Judas on the near side of the table. But Da Vinci is showing that at this point Judas is still a follower of Jesus and is still part of the intimate gathering. But he has also painted him as the only one looking away from the light and his face is in shadow to show the thoughts of betrayal that he will soon commit.

Da Vinci also painted Jesus looking down because he didn’t want him looking up at the opposite wall where there is am earlier painting of him nailed to his crucifix. 

The way the last supper has been used as a homage today is mainly in advertising and I think it isn’t paying respect to the painting at all but making fun of it and for a painting that has been trough so much in history and is still around today for thousands of people to view shouldn’t be used as an advertising campaign to sell jeans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnBT7XwqTGM