Schuter
Established
If you submitted Goldin’s images to the typical internet photography guru for a portfolio critique, the results may be amusing. Contrast, focus, white balance, shadow detail, all wrong. Obviously the work of an amateur with little potential. Or is it? She has won numerous prestigious awards and has been exhibited globally. That is not the net result of a bunch of accidental photos.
She was classically trained, with a Bachelor of Fine Arts from the School of the Museum of Fine Arts/Tufts University in Boston, with a fifth year certificate. I see evidence of that training in her images. I see an understanding of the classical art principles of dynamic symmetry. Whether it was recognized at the moment she tripped the shutter or the result of careful editing, I don’t know, but I see a deliberate approach in her composition. I have no doubt she can produce a technically correct, Rembrandt-lit corporate headshot for an annual report. But that’s not her style.
To me, her “snapshot aesthetic” doesn’t have the signature look of any specific camera or lens and could be emulated with a wide variety of photographic systems. Goldin seemed to use focal lengths in the normal-to moderately wide range. I don’t see many long telephotos or extreme wides. Nor do I see any preference for a particular style of lighting. There is soft, hard, natural, flash and ambient light evident in her work, and she is clearly capable of using what is available.
I also see a strong relationship of trust between her and her subjects. She clearly had access to scenes that that someone outside her “tribe” would never see, much less be invited to document. She built bodies of work around subjects she connected with, understood and loved. I believe that much of the evocative impact of her images is a result of this.
That was more analysis than advice. So, getting back to the OP’s query… If I were to try to emulate Goldin’s “style” of photography, I would start with people with whom I have that kind of genuine trust. I think the attempt would fall flat without it. Assuming the OP already has that, I would work with a camera/lens combination that is simple, intuitive to use and unobtrusive. Medium? It looks like she used slide film and some black and white. I think one could approximate the look in digital and initially save money in material costs, but definitely have a go at film at some point. Once the technique is developed, determine why the strong images are strong and why the weak ones are weak. For me this is difficult to do objectively without help from somebody else.
There is no shame in trying to emulate somebody else’s style. Many great artists who are intellectually honest humbly acknowledge those who influenced them. Even the earliest photographers were influenced by the great painters. Over time their own visions evolved, and their distinctive styles emerged. Meanwhile, “F8 and be there”.
She was classically trained, with a Bachelor of Fine Arts from the School of the Museum of Fine Arts/Tufts University in Boston, with a fifth year certificate. I see evidence of that training in her images. I see an understanding of the classical art principles of dynamic symmetry. Whether it was recognized at the moment she tripped the shutter or the result of careful editing, I don’t know, but I see a deliberate approach in her composition. I have no doubt she can produce a technically correct, Rembrandt-lit corporate headshot for an annual report. But that’s not her style.
To me, her “snapshot aesthetic” doesn’t have the signature look of any specific camera or lens and could be emulated with a wide variety of photographic systems. Goldin seemed to use focal lengths in the normal-to moderately wide range. I don’t see many long telephotos or extreme wides. Nor do I see any preference for a particular style of lighting. There is soft, hard, natural, flash and ambient light evident in her work, and she is clearly capable of using what is available.
I also see a strong relationship of trust between her and her subjects. She clearly had access to scenes that that someone outside her “tribe” would never see, much less be invited to document. She built bodies of work around subjects she connected with, understood and loved. I believe that much of the evocative impact of her images is a result of this.
That was more analysis than advice. So, getting back to the OP’s query… If I were to try to emulate Goldin’s “style” of photography, I would start with people with whom I have that kind of genuine trust. I think the attempt would fall flat without it. Assuming the OP already has that, I would work with a camera/lens combination that is simple, intuitive to use and unobtrusive. Medium? It looks like she used slide film and some black and white. I think one could approximate the look in digital and initially save money in material costs, but definitely have a go at film at some point. Once the technique is developed, determine why the strong images are strong and why the weak ones are weak. For me this is difficult to do objectively without help from somebody else.
There is no shame in trying to emulate somebody else’s style. Many great artists who are intellectually honest humbly acknowledge those who influenced them. Even the earliest photographers were influenced by the great painters. Over time their own visions evolved, and their distinctive styles emerged. Meanwhile, “F8 and be there”.
