NYT Discovers "The Regulars"

I agree that it sounds like a good idea. But after reviewing some of the images on the gallery website I don't quite see the execution. I couldn't help feeling that some of you fellow RFF members would have done a much better job.

-Randy
 
I don't think they are anything special. More power to her elbow if she can get someone to buy prints at $2,000, never mind $5,000. As usual its in the eye of the beholder and of course the NYT won't do any harm.
 
Sorry guys, I didn't mean to sound too negative. I just don't see it in these images. And more power to you if you do. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong. But they don't do it for me. Guess that's what makes it art. And kudos to the photographer for making a go of it, both with the book and the MFA in Photography.

-Randy
 
Randy, thanks for the link to the images.
Frankly, having spent a lot of time in places like that bar, I recognize those folks. More, I know the looks in their eyes.
The photos are very good, I think, and I think the way she lit them definitely plays into the idea: those kind of bars are harsh.
"Art"? I dunno. Honest? I think so.
Rob
PS: I do think there are some few of us here at RFF who could have shot something like this; but I certainly couldn't.
R
 
rbiemer said:
Randy, thanks for the link to the images.
Frankly, having spent a lot of time in places like that bar, I recognize those folks. More, I know the looks in their eyes.
The photos are very good, I think, and I think the way she lit them definitely plays into the idea: those kind of bars are harsh.
"Art"? I dunno. Honest? I think so.
Rob
PS: I do think there are some few of us here at RFF who could have shot something like this; but I certainly couldn't.
R
Click to expand...

You got that right. I resemble one or two of those shots. This is a case where the whole seems to be greater than the sum of the parts.
 
I've been in, heck lived in, a lot of places like that. I can understand the idea of the lighting but I don't think it works. They really are mug shots of a sort and are well enough done so far as it goes. However a nice big hammerhead flash used like Weegee used a 7" reflector on a 3 cell handle? That would have done the trick while still giving the hard/harsh/"welcome to the jungle" feel she's apparently after. Just look at her images and imagine the light a bit higher & to the right rather than straight on into the face. I agree you don't want glamor lighting but I just don't think that what has been done is right.

I think the lighting bugs me because I see so much done right - the composition using the square & the bar and chair as framing mechanisms is fantastic. Be interesting to know if she shot a 6x6 camera or if it's cropped to that...

As far as the price on the prints, more power to her. I'd be lucky to get change from a fiver for one of mine :bang: And yes, I can think of at least three shooters here at RFF who could do that series at least as well if not better. Alas, I'm not one of them...

William
 
The images are thoughtfully crafted in many ways.

1. They do NOT look like they were shot with a point and shoot with a built in flash. The lighting is very carefully worked out so she gets exactly the look she wants. She used a strobe, obviously, but there is some kind of diffusion of the light source, perhaps a bare bulb flash unit in a white reflector or some other device to add subtle diffusion. Also, the light source is too high up for it to look like a built in flash. It may evoke the look of on camera flash but the images lack many of its telltale signs like glossy skin reflections, red eye, etc. Seems very sophisticated to me.

2. She is thinking a lot about depth of field; the pics are riveting in part because the faces are sharp but the hands, the stuff in the foreground are not. Also because of her careful use of lighting, those objects that are closer are not washed out as they would be with on-camera flash.

3. Her images are full of art historical references. I thought immediately of the portraits by Titian; got out my Titian book and the similarities to some of his portraits is really striking. Try google images if you don't have a Titian book. Also the depth of field/ focus play reminds me somewhat of Vermeer. These characteristics are too consistent to be chalked up to conicidence. I think she knows, and appreciates art history.

4. The glance, the humanity, the loneliness and isolation of the individuals. Perhaps the most important thing.

5. The prices: So what? One image is already sold out. As for buying Cartier-Bresson prints, any photo dealer can tell you that finding a good Cartier-Bresson print is very difficult. They are few and far between. There are, however, many, many poorly printed HCB prints out there - and signed ones too. For $2K you are paying more for an autograph, you'd be extraordinarily lucky to get a good signed HCB print for $2K.

6. (Disclaimer) - The above statements are my opinion, my opinion only.
 
vrgard said:
I just don't see it in these images. And more power to you if you do.
Click to expand...

I see it!

These are the people you see at the bar all the time, often times alone, often times chatting with each other, or chatting with the bartender. Whenever you go to a bar you will see them. You know each one has a story, but that story will never be told to you.

The ones that intrigue me are the ones who sit alone at a table at a bar where there's a band, nursing a beer, and are obviously totally lost in the music. They seldom interact with the others, but are most definitely into it!
 
A lot of the "value" of any artwork depends on which social circles you tavel. Rich people can afford to pay more. If your dad went to Harvard with people who ended up as art critics or book publishers, or operating a high end art gallery more as a hobby than a way of making a living (their trust fund supports their lavish life style) while other friernds are simply collectors you have the right connections.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
Al Kaplan said:
A lot of the "value" of any artwork depends on which social circles you tavel. Rich people can afford to pay more. If your dad went to Harvard with people who ended up as art critics or book publishers, or operating a high end art gallery more as a hobby than a way of making a living (their trust fund supports their lavish life style) while other friernds are simply collectors you have the right connections.
Click to expand...

Spooky … I was just wondering if she were related in some way to the owner of the gallery
 
The people don't look interesting to me, mostly young hipsters. Where are the truly haggard, freakish old drunks? Makes me thinks it used to be a dive bar, but has been gentrified. She's no Diane Arbus.
 
What is interesting about this series of mediocre shots of regular customers of a bar in NY ?
 
The press release says;

She has incisively captured the search for community and contact among a diverse group of people. In so doing, Stolfa has created both a set of distinct and affecting portraits and a remarkable catalogue of Americans at the beginning of the 21st century.
Click to expand...

But on first viewing, yes, they are uninteresting, either by your chance or Nikonwebbrowsers art; regardless of their cost.

I’ll look again later when I’ve time to study them more and see why
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom