Shane Lavalette

5 Comments

1. eileen byrne
   November 29, 2007 – 11:12 pm

   sure, there is a lot of bad editorial photography out there, but there is a lot of bad “art” photography out there too. we may not disagree so much on the specifics as the semantics, but i feel compelled to tell you that you do sound a bit arrogant. may not be your intention. but isn’t taste subjective?i mean, if jill greenberg can pass off photoshopped crying babies as political statements/art photgraphy that’ is the art world;s cross to bear, i’m afraid i’m not in favor of slick fashion shoots for editorial, or a lot of the gimmicks and contrivances, but there is some honorable editorial work out there as often as there is cheesy art photography.

2. Shane Lavalette
   November 29, 2007 – 11:52 pm

   Eileen,

   Of course, a lot of what I write on this blog is entirely subjective (as with any opinion); I’d be shocked to find an opinion that wasn’t. Like the making a photograph, where the photographer chooses what to include and what to omit by use of the frame, a blogger also makes subjective decisions.

   In my assessment of editorial photography, I didn’t mean to come off as though I was privileging one use of the medium over another and certainly didn’t mean to come off as sounding arrogant. The reason that I even specify that the work is “editiorial” is simply because I tend to write about photography of the “fine art” persuasion and making the distinction might be important for readers.

   As for my choice of language: “bad” may be a “bad” (or, rather, inadequate) term. Something like “uninspired” might be more like it. It’s my impression that a lot of commercial/editorial work is, however slight, “directed” by the client and sometimes in a way that (despite what we would hope) suppresses its creative potential rather than allows for it. One could say the same about the pressures of the art world – pressures that make artists feels as though they have to frame or represent their ideas a certain way for them to be noticed, sold, etc.

   Anyway, don’t get me wrong; I agree entirely that there is inspired editorial work being made as often as there is uninspired fine art work.

3. richard friedman
   November 30, 2007 – 6:14 pm

   I’m curious to find out more about why you think the two pictures in this entry are good. (I should state, subjectively, that I certainly don’t… in fact I see them as a waste of bandwidth.) Are the pictures themselves that are interesting, oris it the mere fact that someone bothered to take them? This always confuses me. I see a lot of praise for images that, taken at face value, are worthless junk, but the fact that someone actually went to the trouble of taking and then promoting the images is really the point of interest.

   I call that metaphotography, which is probably a social science, and not an art.

   Eileen is right. There is so much bad art prominading as the emperor’s clothes.

4. Shane Lavalette
   November 30, 2007 – 11:48 pm

   Richard,

   What I think is “good” about Chris’ work is very much a matter of my own taste, as you also stated alongside your opinion about the above images. I don’t feel much of a need to tell you why I personally like them in response to the mere fact that you don’t, but for the sake of dialogue I’m happy to offer something on the topic of successful editorial photography that might offer something on the topic of what makes certain images “good.”

   It seems to me that Chris’ job (or, more precisely, the function of the images that he makes) is simply to illustrate a person for an article. Chris specializes in editorial portraiture. In the case of his work, I often find that the photographs do more than just present the subject he is assigned to. He makes room for the images to function on more than one level, as more than as just an illustration. It is my belief that successful editorial work utilizes many similar (if not, the very same) elements that make successful fine art work “good.” In other words, I think Chris does his job very well. I’m not sure if this is at all the sort of answer you’re looking for, but that’s why I like them in simple terms

   Is it the pictures themselves that are interesting, or is it the mere fact that someone bothered to take them that makes them interesting? I’d argue both – giving importance to the artist’s role as well as the object’s. What you write about “metaphotography” is intriguing and I wonder if I’m touching on a similar idea with what I wrote in my response to Eileen about the idea of fine art photographers making fine art photographs for fine art photography’s sake.

   Anyway, thanks for stopping by and commenting.

5. richard friedman
   December 1, 2007 – 2:47 am

   Shane:
   Thanks for responding to my crank comment.

   What bothers me about a lot of current photography and criticism is that it seems like pictures are expected to tell some story. Visually they can be crap but it has to tell a story. Personally, I don’t agree with this idea, just like I don’t think music needs to tell a story. The need for story reminds me of people who can’t read without moving their lips. It’s a crutch for bad pictures.

   So I have a hard time reconciling “editorial photography” with art. (I know, I used the “a” word. Shame on me.)

   What I look for in art, be it photography, painting, sculpture, poetry, or music, is something transformational, something transcendental. I guess that puts me in the wrong century. Photos like the two in your posting leave me cold and depressed. The story seems to be: “See, here are some stupid people doing stupid things”. And “Aren’t I great? I took these pictures of stupid people.”

   The pictures are crap, the story depressing, and I really fear for the photographer.

   Sometimes I wish Diane Arbus had taken up flower arrangement rather than a camera.

   (Sorry, I’m just getting just too cranky.)