Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>I wonder how much of the attraction we feel for Bailey is due to the fact >that he got to photograph some of the icons of the 60s like the Rolling >Stones up close and in person? In other words, would his pictures be >equally interesting if they had to be judged on their merits rather than on >their historical interest? I am not sure myself. I have not seen this >particular book but have seen a lot of his work, particularly in the >British photo mags that continue to hype people like Bailey and Lichfield. > >Nathan This is a good question, but is not limited to those who photograph celebrities. For example, could we not ask the same question of war photogs, whose subject matter cannot not effect us? Or those who photograph tragedies of whatever type: starving children, fleeing refugies, concentration camp victims, suvivors of the 9/11 attack, etc.? A lot of the images published in Life magazine were pretty humdrum, but moved millions for what they depicted. Seems to me that certain types of photography - by virtue of their subject matter - will almost certainly move us, whether the photographs themselves are well done or not. Think of Capa's shots of the Normandy landing, "spoiled," he felt, by an overeager lab assistant who destroyed many of the shots and melted the emulsion of others by overdrying them with a hair dryer. They're still devasting images, among the most powerful war photos that I have ever seen. Sometimes the subject matter is more potent than the image that conveys it. Guy - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html