Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/10/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] eyes...
From: abridge at gmail.com (Adam Bridge)
Date: Sat Oct 29 22:44:19 2005
References: <ce.7404f0df.30956e2e@aol.com> <2B9AD66D-9B79-4B61-A41E-86C27750ABF4@cox.net> <006401c5dcf6$2c0d45a0$1ae76c18@ted>

This is an interesting observation for me, Ted, espeically in view of
an article that appeared to the Weekend Wall Street Journal. Joe
Morgenstern was writing about how some films might benefit from the
small screen of something like the new video-capable iPod.

He wrote:

"I talked about this a few days ago during a chance encounter -- at a
kids' pumpkin-carving party -- with Jon Amiel, the director of the
1986 BBC miniseries "The Singing Detective." His production still
stands as one of the few masterworks of the TV medium and is so richly
detailed as to blur the distinction between big and small screen.
"People talk a lot of nonsense about screen size," he said, and
misunderstand the wide-screen format, which is often thought to be
appropriate mainly for spectacles or outdoor vistas. In his view, the
wide screen, whether in a theater or a home, provides us with valuable
context. Instead of being confronted by screen-filling close-ups of
faces on conventional screens, we're able to see where people belong
in relation to one another or their surroundings"

I had the same reaction as Ted - the man at the computer had context
while only the man on the telephone had any sense of context at all.
Sometimes, as in a studio portrait, the figure can be situated in what
I think people call "negative space" - that is there's an absence of
anything there. I have come to admire that sort of Richard Avedon
white (or black or gray) space because its orientation can be
manipulated.

But other portraits - environmental portraits - give context for
person and I'm coming to find that sense of space, and of the self
that fills it, to be a challenge.

I believe Steve's portrait of the man and his computer - and, of
course, his eyes - is what gives the image it's power and why I
reacted to it.

Of course this is probably obvious to everyone but me, but I thought
I'd add it for the sake of discussion on the off-chance that it might
be as informative to you as it was to me.

Adam

On 10/29/05, Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> wrote:

> It's a completely different photograph to a "portrait style" as we see in
> the other pictures. I don't doubt Steve is going to achieve the kind of eye
> series he has in mind, but it's not an easy subject to shoot. Well any
> subject is a tough thing to shoot when building a series of excellent
> photographs, but he'll do it.
>


Replies: Reply from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] eyes...)
In reply to: Message from SonC at aol.com (SonC@aol.com) ([Leica] eyes...)
Message from kididdoc at cox.net (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] eyes...)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] eyes...)