Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/08/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Scott, I just browsed through Anderson's gallery on Magnum Photo. What I feel is that they have a more fine arts and less journalistic quality to them. My humble opinions... I tried reading Inferno, but I can't. I have to put the book down.... At 11:24 PM 8/17/2006, you wrote: >Capa: If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough. > >Yeah, we all know that old one, but it's relevant here. > >I feel I'm going to go out on a limb here, because the recent conflict >is so sad, but.... > >I think his pictures are mediocre *at best*. Basically amateurish >snapshots. > >My favorites are: #28 of the photographs and the wounded leg; #33 >of pro Hezbollah protesters. And in that order of strong preference. > >But most of the pics, well, aren't close enough! Go through the >series, and most of the shots have a voyeuristic distance - I feel >no intimacy with the subjects. > >Most of the pics are of "collateral damage." I get it, the human >face, and human cost, of a battle (war if you want). But they fall >flat for me. Here's where I think of Chim Seymour's work. > >I count myself fortunate to have seen a collection of Chim Seymour's >photos recently at the National Gallery, and most were his pics of >children in the aftermath of WWII. My Lord, what a remarkable >and moving set of photographs!!!! I think it's in part because they >somehow show *life*, both the pathos and the tidbits of joy and >humanity (the famous one of the nun playing ball with the orphans, >just for example). > >Anderson's pics pretty much suck by comparison: a blown up >building; another one; a tiny figure of a man crawling around on a >blown up building; blown up buildings at night; a dead person; >a crowd of protesters; a parking garage with refugees; more blown >up buildings. > >Horrors all, but such a bland rendition. > >Even his pic of the children playing in the shopping carts - there's >no movement. Instead of a picture of children at play, the play is >halted and we get a mugshot of a few children. > >These are moving subjects, yet I'm left completely unmoved. > >The majority of Anderson's pics are like snapshots - to use Eugene >Smith's somewhat hyperbolic language, I don't feel like his pics >make me "see into the heart, the very truth of the subject," in this >case the devastation and the people who so sadly suffered it. > >And I'm only 40 and know Capa and Seymour only as historical >figures. I'm not worshiping the PJ past or anything. I think >Nachtewey's (sp?) work on this same kind of subject matter is >far, far superior (just thinking of his Bosnia and African famine >photos, for example). > >OK, so Nachtewey is a real ace, creme de la creme, and comparison >isn't fair? OK. I can accept that. > >But still.... Am I the only one who thinks Anderson's pics fall >short and just aren't very compelling? And with subject matter >like that, what is his excuse? > >Scott > >-- >Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps >Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 >(Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act) > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com)