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

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

Renaissance

Renaissance comes from the meaning 'rebirth' it was named this from the new outlooks on the world after the fall of the Roman Empire. People started to think that there was more to the world than gods creations and there was a much greater theories to the meanings of the world.

Thousands year ago the arts were once flourishing. Then the fall of the Roman Empire happened and this started to change the way that art was influenced and is where the rebirth of art comes to life.  A lot of people think this is the century where the best pieces of art were created. They focused less on the power of the church and religion and instead were elaborate pieces of art that showed the development of science and new creations. Instead of trading new pieces of art they were trading new ideas, theories and eventually discoveries.

Michelangelo 

Michelangelo was one of the great artist in the time of the renaissance. He painted huge pieces across ceilings and created giant sculptures of the human forms. He managed stun people with his accuracy to detail with his human forms. He managed to create a true likeness and showed muscle definition and veins in his work. He was able to understand and create the human form by practicing dissection.




He was completely dedicated to his work and with this dedication he managed to create breath taking works of art such as the Sistine Chapel ceiling where he would have had to stand on scaffolding and paint nearly 16000 squared feet while being 70 foot in the air. This was a huge project which was completed 4 years later. This made him a bit of a celebrity and a wealthy artist.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=michelangelo&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=K22mUqefNoajhgfyt4HYAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1001&bih=452#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=jQ6qzGGngZbG8M%3A%3B2HBFzwv1P-aorM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252Fb%252Fb4%252FMichelangelo_-_Creation_of_Adam.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FSistine_Chapel_ceiling%3B4256%3B2843

Pre - Columbian American Art

Columbian art was mainly popular in Mexico and Peru and there seemed to be a bit of a competition between the two countries work. But Mexico seemed to stand out at the time with their interesting architecture that had the look of a pyramid but the feel of a temple. Mexico may have been in the lead at the time with the architecture but because of Peru's coastal dry climate it has managed to preserve delicate materials more of a textiles substances.
   

Lick in the times of cave painting they are still doing stone painting in the beginnings of civilisation. But rather that it being about dancing animals in the light of a flame, it is more of gods and their powers. There are a lot of paintings of the rain gods this will be because farming has started and they want rain for the new crops. But unlike the cave paintings you don’t have to guess as much about what the paintings are showing, as they are more detailed. But with gods came serpents and these are also shown in the paintings in their own isolated band. 

I found this image on google but it looks really simelar to the ones I have seen in books like 'AcentArts of the Americans' it must have been a well seen images and thats what people actually thought the god looked like as they are all the same colours and shapes. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Tetitla_Teotihuacan_Great_Goddess_mural_(Abracapocus).jpg 

Rock Art

What are the meanings behind cave paintings? The hard thing about prehistoric art it’s obviously much harder to fine out what the meanings behind the artwork because you can’t ask the painter or sculptor. But you can ask a select few people from this generation and see if the know anything that there ancestors has passed down the family tree. It is getting harder and harder to find theses people as information is getting lost each time it is passed on and this new generation is finding it less interesting and aren’t seeing the importance of finding out as much information from there ancestors. This means that it’s hard to know if the paintings and symbols had hidden meaning. 

But some of the meanings behind the work are more obvious than others. For example markings on the outside of caves or open areas with things like shields or men on is a warning to anyone passing by that they are in marked territory. Other things like circles have a huge range of meanings and you can only tell what a circle is if you look at the rest of the markings as it can range from a water whole to the base of a tree. But the most common meaning is that is is the source of life and nourishment.    

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cave+painting+of+a+circle&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=vYSWUvHZOYejhge6q4CIBg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1001&bih=513#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=62qmJOKVTqXgfM%3A%3Br7qwCMqbR6qTgM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fpaintingowu.files.wordpress.com%252F2011%252F01%252Frock-circle-at-exeter-hill.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fpaintingowu.wordpress.com%252Ftag%252Fpaleolithic-cave-painting%252F%3B720%3B612

Another thing I found out from reading a book named 'World Rock Art' is that not all members of the tribes or communities were allowed to paint certain things like evil spirits as it says in the book. 'the meanings of paintings of evil spirits and other dangerous creatures are accessible only to elders who know how to respect the paintings, for it is believed that any interference with them could cause the evil spirits to multiply.' From 'Page 105' I find it really amazing that these people had so much respect and meaning for the marks that they were leaving, and who know that they would still be there in 40 thousand years later still holding all the mystery and questions that there was back then. 

The Ancient World

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=brother+bear+handprint+ceremony&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ryuNUqvdIuLR0QWA1oAw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1001&bih=513#es_sm=91&espv=210&q=prehistoric+cave+paintings&tbm=isch

For the ancient world presentation week I really liked the part on the prehistoric cave paintings. I instantly wanted to know more about it. So I tried to find some books in the library but it wasn’t as easy as I had thought as there wasn’t much to choose from. So I decided to start with looking on the Internet.

I came across an anthropologist called Dean Snow and he started looking into handprints in caves, and like many other people I just assumed that handprints in caves belonged to men. This is because of the other cave paintings that I have come across of male hunting diagrams and I just linked this to the handprints. But Snow had done some research on the measurements of male and female hands, such as a woman’s index finger is genuinely longer in comparison to men’s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvy9uS7jhvs

Another reason why I had in mind that the handprints might have belonged to men is because; this might sound silly, but of the film brother bear. The film is about three brothers that are in a tribe and look to the spirits for guidance, and the spirits send them individual totems to help them become the best man that they can be for there people. When they are seen as a worthy man they earn there place to mark a handprint on the wall with there ancestors

My favourite moment of the film is right at the end when Kenai who was man that was transferred into a bear (by the spirits) realises what his path in life is from his own reckless actions. Without knowing this himself he revels his dedication to his totem and urns the honour of becoming a man, even as a bear and gets to put his paw print on the wall with his ancestors.        

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kL6-fOENnfA