Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Playboy?
Roland, Newton's work is not about naked women's bodies... It's about naked man's souls.
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
“Helmut Newton is a surreal storyteller... His photographs depict, with a great sense of drama, our fears and desires with a touch of sophisticated decadence.” - Manfred Heiting.
“This world has its own universal language. The viewer's first impression is one of extreme shock, for in Helmut Newton's work everyone recognizes themselves, and not everyone likes what they see” - Françoise Marquet.
“This world has its own universal language. The viewer's first impression is one of extreme shock, for in Helmut Newton's work everyone recognizes themselves, and not everyone likes what they see” - Françoise Marquet.
ferider
Veteran
Attachments
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
John Lennon's work has nothing to do with Playboy, and Playboy used his public image to sell more magazines.
Helmut Newton didn't develop his style through that magazine. His photographs aren't similar to those of that magazine. They used him as a star, and his shooting was a curiosity in that magazine.
That's why I own several books of Newton, and not a single Playboy.
Cheers,
Juan
Helmut Newton didn't develop his style through that magazine. His photographs aren't similar to those of that magazine. They used him as a star, and his shooting was a curiosity in that magazine.
That's why I own several books of Newton, and not a single Playboy.
Cheers,
Juan
Pablito
coco frío
well, I'm not really a fan, but Newton's work and Playboy - not even in the same universe.
And yes, I think Nachtwey is far more interesting, to me at least.
And yes, I think Nachtwey is far more interesting, to me at least.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Is Nachtwey's photography interesting, or Salgado's, or is our world sad in some aspects?
HCB and Newton are interesting...
Cheers,
Juan
HCB and Newton are interesting...
Cheers,
Juan
Pablito
coco frío
But Newton hobnobbed with the elite while Arbus engaged social outcasts. Newton was a high society party animal and Arbus was a tortured soul. The thing that's disconcerting about Arbus' photos is not the uncomfortableness - just the opposite. She is intimate and comfortable with her subjects. If the viewer is uncomfortable, that's the viewer's problem. They both worked very hard and had vision. But in my book, Arbus is the great one.
ferider
Veteran
Maybe I wasn't obvious enough, the cover shot above is from Newton who sold a whole series on Nastassja Kinski to Playboy, among others.
Just to clarify (again): in his later life a great and popular fashion photographer and in that not too different from Annie Leibovitz, IMO. Diverse, popular, etc, but also feeling slightly corrupt to me. I am only objecting to the "greatest photographer of all time" label, since for me he is missing personal engagement with the subjects and too commercial, much like what other people on this forum say about Adams (who I very much like). But, again for me, Newton is not in the same ranks of a Capa, Frank, or a more modern Nachtwey (who did not shoot wars only); Newton simply doesn't speak that loudly and with enough echo.
Roland.
Last edited:
Pablito
coco frío
Pablito
coco frío
That's why I own several books of Newton, and not a single Playboy.
Well, the internet has largely replaced Playboy. Oh, except for those who read it for the articles.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
The grotesque facial expression on that cover shows how different, how opposite was Newton's approach to nudity compared to Playboy's commercial nudity, and shows how much was being honored the photographer by Playboy those days... He didn't use erotism to provoke erotism, but he didn't use it to cause shock either: this is collateral... He used erotism to show us that's the sacred place where our souls give and need more deeply...
About interesting photography:
Some may find beautiful a shot of a beautiful sunset. Some may find beautiful the sunset, but boring the photograph.
I appreciate lots of photographers, but especially those whose photographs are interesting, and not those reflecting reality, no matter if it's a beautiful or sad reality...
Ansel Adams is a great man: I thank him his books I studied being a teenager. I appreciate his printing and compositional skills. I have never felt passion or real interest for his work.
About Arbus, I think more or less what the great Susan Sontag said... Shooting pathetism is not photographically interesting.
Atget, HCB and Newton are interesting because they create more than they reflect. Anyone thinking they reflect instead of creating, should take a better look...
Cheers,
Juan
About interesting photography:
Some may find beautiful a shot of a beautiful sunset. Some may find beautiful the sunset, but boring the photograph.
I appreciate lots of photographers, but especially those whose photographs are interesting, and not those reflecting reality, no matter if it's a beautiful or sad reality...
Ansel Adams is a great man: I thank him his books I studied being a teenager. I appreciate his printing and compositional skills. I have never felt passion or real interest for his work.
About Arbus, I think more or less what the great Susan Sontag said... Shooting pathetism is not photographically interesting.
Atget, HCB and Newton are interesting because they create more than they reflect. Anyone thinking they reflect instead of creating, should take a better look...
Cheers,
Juan
kbg32
neo-romanticist
"About Arbus, I think more or less what the great Susan Sontag said... Shooting pathetism is not photographically interesting"
I don't think Sontag really understood what Arbus was about.
I don't think Sontag really understood what Arbus was about.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
ferider
Veteran
Hi Juan,
Interesting: when my wife and I left the Robert Frank exhibition in the SF MOMA recently, she felt Frank's photography depressing. To me, besides being critical, it came across as caring and loving, actually. This emotion was created, but between the two of us, it only came across to me.
When I look at the Kinski photo above, she just looks p*ssed to me, very much a reflection, not a creation.
Attached a Nachtwey. Creation or reflection ?
Obviously, we are resonating differently.
Roland.
Interesting: when my wife and I left the Robert Frank exhibition in the SF MOMA recently, she felt Frank's photography depressing. To me, besides being critical, it came across as caring and loving, actually. This emotion was created, but between the two of us, it only came across to me.
When I look at the Kinski photo above, she just looks p*ssed to me, very much a reflection, not a creation.
Attached a Nachtwey. Creation or reflection ?
Obviously, we are resonating differently.
Roland.
Attachments
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
FrankS,
Great idea this thread!
Cheers,
Juan
Great idea this thread!
Cheers,
Juan
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Roland:
Even if he showed sad situations many times, I find Frank far from easy Arbus' pathetism, and I find Frank a great photographer who creates a lot... Part of his creation is believing in his visual perception when picking and discarding once and again... His photography makes me optimistic and happily loved too! We are resonating the same way, of course.
Cheers,
Juan
Pablito
coco frío
I don't see Arbus' images or subjects as pathetic at all. That seems to me like a major misinterpretation.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Dear Roland,
With all due respect -not a formalism: you are one of the greatest posters here- I didn't understand why you wanted to use a Playboy cover to relate Newton's work to cheap and bad taste nudity... As if one single image could prove one idea of yours about a photographer, simply by explaining that single image precisely to make it look close to that idea of yours... And now I don't understand why you are, again, sending me one single image, trying to get a white/black answer from me... No matter my opinion on that image or on that photographer (by the way, a bit too worried about composition and framing to my liking) it's fine for me that you have yours... And you don't need to answer or prove anything about him after an answer of mine... You can decide by your own feeling if that image has more reflection or creation, and relate your ideas on that single image, to your own perception of his whole work... Personally, I feel him in general a lot more reflective than creative.
I feel comfortable after your opinion on Newton... My opinion is not special in any way... The things I said about him, are not only not new, but you can also read that general opinion from critics on lots of essays that are many years ago part of the history of photography... If you ask me, Nachtwey will never be a great figure in long history of photography because he's not got a strong, clear personal style, and he didn't change anything either... About Arbus, it's normal that lots of people feel moved after her shows: they feel moved because of reality, and maybe a bit because of her own image she sold and her end, not because of the photographs, and not because of her as photographer either, in the same way some people buy paintings of light landscapes for their living rooms because they miss being there, not because they enjoy the painting itself or the painter's style... I wasn't there when Arbus' desolation was a boom, but I think she's less of a boom now... Of course in the modern world there are books and shows for thousands of photographers... Who knows? Only time will tell...
Cheers,
Juan
With all due respect -not a formalism: you are one of the greatest posters here- I didn't understand why you wanted to use a Playboy cover to relate Newton's work to cheap and bad taste nudity... As if one single image could prove one idea of yours about a photographer, simply by explaining that single image precisely to make it look close to that idea of yours... And now I don't understand why you are, again, sending me one single image, trying to get a white/black answer from me... No matter my opinion on that image or on that photographer (by the way, a bit too worried about composition and framing to my liking) it's fine for me that you have yours... And you don't need to answer or prove anything about him after an answer of mine... You can decide by your own feeling if that image has more reflection or creation, and relate your ideas on that single image, to your own perception of his whole work... Personally, I feel him in general a lot more reflective than creative.
I feel comfortable after your opinion on Newton... My opinion is not special in any way... The things I said about him, are not only not new, but you can also read that general opinion from critics on lots of essays that are many years ago part of the history of photography... If you ask me, Nachtwey will never be a great figure in long history of photography because he's not got a strong, clear personal style, and he didn't change anything either... About Arbus, it's normal that lots of people feel moved after her shows: they feel moved because of reality, and maybe a bit because of her own image she sold and her end, not because of the photographs, and not because of her as photographer either, in the same way some people buy paintings of light landscapes for their living rooms because they miss being there, not because they enjoy the painting itself or the painter's style... I wasn't there when Arbus' desolation was a boom, but I think she's less of a boom now... Of course in the modern world there are books and shows for thousands of photographers... Who knows? Only time will tell...
Cheers,
Juan
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
Everyone has different taste buds, and that's fine. I did say, "..one of the best..." not "THE best". Easily top 10 for me. YMMV
aizan
Veteran
i basically like his photos, but never really got into it because none of his books were that great. i saw the reprint of "white women" nearly a decade ago, but i don't remember it much.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.