What's philosophically, photographically valid?

This got me thinking too. Mostly "why?".

I can see it being done if you used modern analogues for the original people, but why John Malkovich? What has he got to do with any of the photos? Was he just what he had access to? Put a known actor to get coverage?

I really don't see the artistic value above a simple recreation here. There is no additional meaning, arguably less, than the originals. If it had been done with modern analogues , then maybe one could draw connections across time and space, and given it some value. For instance there are still many mothers raising children below the poverty line; there is still racial discrimination in our communities and so on.

Michael
 
He had some difficulties with the Marilyn shot, haha...
I guess, when you get to the "post" phase in art, you can be post anything, even post humorous. My take on this is, they were seeking publicity. Is it a sin? Not a big one, especially in today's world.
 
Pretty amazing that Malkovich/Miller, make-up, styling, and crew were able to do such a great job recreating these well-known photos. Past that, I don't know - is it to prove they can? James Franco's "copying" of Cindy Sherman's Film Stills project, for me is a better project. Personally, I would prefer seeing original work. Malkovich, himself, should be enough inspiration for any photographer, and the results from that kind of shoot would interest me. Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I view it as a waste of time. What do I know? I'm sure the public will love it and it will sell. :)
 
I saw it in news line earlier, but didn't pay attention. But if it is mentioned on RFF, twice :)
Hilarious! Great acting, good makeup and dressing and very professional photography.
 
What's philosophically, photographically valid?
Click to expand...
That all depends on who you ask, doesn't it?

It also depends on whether the photographer thinks his/her own work is valid, or whether they seek validation from an external source such as a gallery, magazine, publisher, etc.

As a photographer, I have come to the realization that without a doubt, the absolute worst measure of the validity of a photographer's work is "how much money has it made him/her?"

Thinking that "success = money" or vice-versa is a sure way to be miserable as a photographer.
 
Why? Because they can? Because it's fun? Because they couldn't think of anything else?

I'm not sure it matters. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom