Take his youth into account; don't hold that against him. He has many years for development, evolution, stylistic and technical roughenings and revisionings (or even more highly mannered refinements, alas).
The portraits I looked at are exquisite, direct, refined, and at times deeply respectful in their presentation; this seems admirable. I do see a stylization that I associate with mannerism (quick/dirty definition: caring more about means of presentation than about essence of subject), and I think I understand what some of you have noted as a certain coolness or coldness in the staging, lighting, and tonality. In my view, this work does not suffer from sentimentality--it is not trying to wring a certain pathos from us--and that is laudable. And though it may be touristic in ways that Edward Said criticized in "Orientalism" about how westerners like to imagine the nonwest, it does not seem to be narcissistic. His portraits present these other beings for us to consider, not as extensions of his desires or self-regard.
Young artists can outgrow mere technical brilliance, but I would not want them to do so before they realize, in their own experience, the proper place for technique in an enduring vision of a world in which they are a small personal lens, one witness among many. If they stick to virtuoso technique for decades, it's fair to dismiss their superficialities. But it seems premature in this photographer's life/work to do anything but take him at his best.
