I came across Michael Ackerman the other day courtesy of a tweet. His work is very different to the classical type portrait work of other photographers I have been looking at.
His book Half Life is a collection of images which show us a very dark and desolate world where we can do little but guess about the characters and their situations.
His images are black and white, often containing no greys at all which gives a surreal look to his work. The images are very high contrast, and are often blurry or totally out of focus. I can't help but feel I am looking at stills from a classic horror movie when I am looking at these pictures.
Colberg talks about photography being a game and Half Life seems to be just that. It appears to present you with the images which contain little to no clues and it is up to the viewer to use their own imagination to give meaning to them.
One way Colberg suggests we look at the artist is someone who shouldn't have to explain his work to the world. What is the point in that? Why should we have to give clues and explanations to the work we create?
This is what distinguishes those who take nice pictures to those who create something - a piece of art.
I suppose up until now I have always felt the need to justify my decisions but this is part of the learning process for me. Perhaps if the day comes when I feel truly assured in my work and confident about it I could take the same stance.
http://jmcolberg.com/weblog/2012/08/review_half_life_by_michael_ackerman/
No comments:
Post a Comment