Compositionally, they are really lovely. I find the green and blue skin to be pretty weird in the context of fashion photos... but that might be something to explore as a means of making them more yours. The vibe I'm getting now is that you are paying homage to Avedon and this old, classy typography style rather than really changing them. The way they are paired almost makes too much sense. You are adding a new layer of complexity that the original photos don't quite have... but it's still all stuck in the fashion realm. Not saying that's a bad thing, just an observation/opinion. Things to consider: what about starting with high-fashion photos and subverting them to reflect whatever the opposite of fashion would be (grunge, ugliness, nerdiness? idk... just ideas... could be anything really). Or what about starting with photos of things you wouldn't think of as "high-fashion" and converting them to look like they are fashion photos or classy advertisements. Obviously what you have here is beautiful and I could easily see them in magazines. They read more like ads to me than art pieces... but the line between the two does get blurred these days, so I'm not sure where that leaves us? Maybe that is what you are exploring here?
I am glad Rachel went first-- makes it easier for the rest of us! I am more into the middle three, and less the first and last. The first because of the orange tint-- the color looks too newspaper or cheap. In the last one I don't love the paring. The N seems too steady in contrast to the movement of the model. So the larger issue that Rachel went into.... I know you are paying homage because you love "the look". Does that make these easy? Are you adding anything to "the look"? What are these saying about fashion and femininity now? Has it changed since the photos were taken? Are you buying into conventions that should be celebrated or revised?
Compositionally, they are really lovely. I find the green and blue skin to be pretty weird in the context of fashion photos... but that might be something to explore as a means of making them more yours. The vibe I'm getting now is that you are paying homage to Avedon and this old, classy typography style rather than really changing them. The way they are paired almost makes too much sense. You are adding a new layer of complexity that the original photos don't quite have... but it's still all stuck in the fashion realm. Not saying that's a bad thing, just an observation/opinion.
ReplyDeleteThings to consider: what about starting with high-fashion photos and subverting them to reflect whatever the opposite of fashion would be (grunge, ugliness, nerdiness? idk... just ideas... could be anything really). Or what about starting with photos of things you wouldn't think of as "high-fashion" and converting them to look like they are fashion photos or classy advertisements.
Obviously what you have here is beautiful and I could easily see them in magazines. They read more like ads to me than art pieces... but the line between the two does get blurred these days, so I'm not sure where that leaves us? Maybe that is what you are exploring here?
I am glad Rachel went first-- makes it easier for the rest of us! I am more into the middle three, and less the first and last. The first because of the orange tint-- the color looks too newspaper or cheap. In the last one I don't love the paring. The N seems too steady in contrast to the movement of the model. So the larger issue that Rachel went into.... I know you are paying homage because you love "the look". Does that make these easy? Are you adding anything to "the look"? What are these saying about fashion and femininity now? Has it changed since the photos were taken? Are you buying into conventions that should be celebrated or revised?
ReplyDelete