Week Three Trading Places - Sally Mann's "Three Graces"

            Sally Mann’s photograph, “Three Graces” was photographed brilliantly, however, the concept escapes me. As you can see there are three naked girls standing on a hill, their hands entwined and they are peeing. If there was a message behind the actions they are taking, it is not clear to the viewer what that may be. The closest relation to three girls in the photograph that I can see, is that they may be hippies expressing their freedom. Since the photograph was taken in 1951, I find it hard to believe these women were hippies because the hippie movement took place during the mid 60’s. It is possible Sally Mann was ahead of her time, however the early 50’s was still a time of reformation and something like this photograph would be taboo. Perhaps Mann was trying to equalize women to men in showing they can pee in public as well. Despite the confusion in why the girls are doing what they are doing, the photograph is still lighted skillfully with the sun setting behind the middle girl. Also, the use of the 8 x 10 view camera to capture all the detail was a great choice pending Sally Mann had a good reason in having these three girls peeing.

Week Two Photo Critique of Hated Photograph

Lucas Samaras’s photo titled, “Photo Transformation” is, in my opinion, not a good photograph. I could see how Samaras could use his method of producing photographs for something much better then what he actually produced. Meaning that his manipulation of the wet dyes in polaroid’s was clever, but without having something better to manipulate it seems like a waste. Normally, even in photographs that I do not like the subject matter of, I can find something redeeming about the photos quality, however I see nothing appealing about this photograph. When looking closely at this photograph, even his quality is lacking, and there is grain all over his photograph. From the eerie and poorly done lighting, to the creepy face, to the robe, to the odd location in his house, it all just seems very amateurish. The fact that Lucas Samaras has had his work in so many art exhibitions astonishes me, because I simply do not see anything unique or eye capturing in his work. Lucas Samaras reminds me of Joel Peter Witkin because he looks as though he is trying to simply scare or disgust the viewer.

Week Two Defining Criticism And The Value of Criticism

            If I had to compare my style of critiquing art to an actual critic, I would mostly relate to Edmund Feldman. The reasoning behind my choosing Feldman is because he also believes that the least important part of critiquing an art piece is evaluating or judging it. I like to appreciate the work for what it is rather then judge it based on my ideas of what art should be. Also, I believe I am similar to A.D. Coleman as well. One of the first things I look for in a piece of art is how it makes me feel and what emotion it provokes. When the critique has an intimate relationship with the artist I believe it can have two results: One would be that they would not be a critic at all, or they might be really tough on the artist because they want them to succeed and constantly grow as an artist. I believe that it is possible for someone with an intimate relationship with the artist to work, however, it is hit or miss on whether it would be truly helpful or not.

            Criticizing art or artists is an important part of any type of art. Artists create art expecting to be critiqued in some way or another. Basically you cannot have art without critique, they go hand in hand. I believe that the value of criticizing art lies within the way the artist or audience interprets the review. The critic may write their review to express themselves or how they feel about a piece of art like A.D. Coleman, but then the artist and the audience reads the reviews and that is where the value of the critics words comes into play. When everyday people have the chance to read a review on an artwork they saw at a museum, that they walked right past, can now look at the artwork again and possibly feel something or see what the critic wrote about is why critics do what they do. In a way, critics persuade viewers to see what they see in writing their critiques, whether they mean to or not. Mentioned in the book is how critics struggle to put all their thoughts into a statement about the art they are criticizing. I suppose the people who may not initially feel something for a piece of art like the critics, can then read the critique and understand a little more about the artwork and could feel appreciative towards the critics.

Week One - Steven Lippman

The photograph I chose to critique is a Steven Lippman photo for Rosalina. I chose this photograph because, not only does it stand out among other photos, it also has a great quality to it and shows the viewer what they need to see—the dress. The use of the lights was magnificent and makes the model’s body, dress and hair pop as well as making her shine with the blue lights in front. It was obvious the dress has a gothic feel and Steven used the wood atmosphere and low lighting to tie in with the dress. The whole photograph seems to have a slight desaturation to it, which feels old fashioned and almost eerie, Gothic. I personally like this particular photograph because of the simplicity. When doing fashion photography, simplicity is key to making the clothes stand out. Also, the models look, as in her hair, make-up and jewelry are done just enough to make the dress the focal point of the photograph. The photograph as a whole is a great ad for the fashion designer Rosalina and fits in perfectly with today’s fashion trends that lean more towards the gothic vampire look. I would rate this photograph and photographer at an A because he used his knowledge of lighting, scenery and placement of the model superbly.