I have to admit that I was trolling when I started this discussion. I guessed that B.D. would hate these.
The strongest ones, I think, are the the straight ahead B&W, Obama, e.g.
It's very interesting to compare with Avedon's Democracy. Is Avedon's Obama much better than Platon's? Of course, Avedon owned this style, paid for with decades of dues doing just this. If you do it now, are you derivative by definition?
Something I had specifically in mind when I started this thread is that both Platon's and Avedon's portraits are greatly enhanced by their captions. It really helps to know who you are looking at. The person is famous, but the photo tells you something about him/her you didn't already know.
Anyone interested in Leibovitz (or in good documentary film making) will enjoy the PBS American Masters film about her "Life Through a Lens". I don't know what it takes to actually see this now. I dug around a little on the PBS archive and couldn't find. But the Annie Leibovitz story is really really interesting and knowing it helped me appreciate the commercial work for what it is. You may not like it as photography, but some of those pictures have made careers overnight. There is a sense in which that means they are very powerful whether you like them or not.
I have to admit that I was trolling when I started this discussion. I guessed that B.D. would hate these.
The strongest ones, I think, are the the straight ahead B&W, Obama, e.g.
It's very interesting to compare with Avedon's Democracy. Is Avedon's Obama much better than Platon's? Of course, Avedon owned this style, paid for with decades of dues doing just this. If you do it now, are you derivative by definition?
Something I had specifically in mind when I started this thread is that both Platon's and Avedon's portraits are greatly enhanced by their captions. It really helps to know who you are looking at. The person is famous, but the photo tells you something about him/her you didn't already know.
But...I believe that most of the Avdeon images stand as terrific portraits without the captions. I don't need to know who most of these people are to get a feel for them from the images - something that the vast majority of the Platon images fail to do.
I seriously doubt these will be regarded as anything other than banal. Which they are.
Too much of the wow factor for photographers, when they have the opportunity to photograph the rich and famous (or in this case, the powerful) comes from the wonder at how they got the opportunity to get the shot, not what they did with the opportunity. And here, Platon did little or nothing that was interesting, his other work notwithstanding.
A really good portrait of a powerful person should give you an insight into that person, such as my personal favorite of this genre, Arnold Newman's portrait of German industrialist Alfried Krupp.
This rocks. Platon's current offering makes me think he set up a passport camera next to the side entrance to the security council, and then PS'ed the crap out of the results. Which may well be what he did.
Even Liebovitz is better than this. I'd rather one picture worth a thousand words than a thousand pictures worth one word, particularly when that word is "Yawn."
!! Thanks for a good laugh. I love the passport analogy. I looked at these and thought what's the fuss about? The most stirring part of this for me was his comments about shooting Robert Mugabe or more specifically the comments by the world leader who was photographed after Mugabe. It gave me chills. Blood on it indeed.
The use of a camera is similar to that of a knife. You can use it to peel potatoes, or carve a flute. ~ E. Kahlmeyer
... I'm still peeling potatoes.
Platon's current offering makes me think he set up a passport camera next to the side entrance to the security council, and then PS'ed the crap out of the results.
The fact that he got so many world leaders as subjects is interesting, the photos not so much.
Comments
The strongest ones, I think, are the the straight ahead B&W, Obama, e.g.
It's very interesting to compare with Avedon's Democracy. Is Avedon's Obama much better than Platon's? Of course, Avedon owned this style, paid for with decades of dues doing just this. If you do it now, are you derivative by definition?
Something I had specifically in mind when I started this thread is that both Platon's and Avedon's portraits are greatly enhanced by their captions. It really helps to know who you are looking at. The person is famous, but the photo tells you something about him/her you didn't already know.
Anyone interested in Leibovitz (or in good documentary film making) will enjoy the PBS American Masters film about her "Life Through a Lens". I don't know what it takes to actually see this now. I dug around a little on the PBS archive and couldn't find. But the Annie Leibovitz story is really really interesting and knowing it helped me appreciate the commercial work for what it is. You may not like it as photography, but some of those pictures have made careers overnight. There is a sense in which that means they are very powerful whether you like them or not.
But...I believe that most of the Avdeon images stand as terrific portraits without the captions. I don't need to know who most of these people are to get a feel for them from the images - something that the vast majority of the Platon images fail to do.
"He not busy being born is busy dying." Bob Dylan
"The more ambiguous the photograph is, the better it is..." Leonard Freed
... I'm still peeling potatoes.
patti hinton photography
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug