And like annie, there's something pure about his work. It's just so raw.
if you can use a backdrop, and in the photograph still leave a whole bunch of the scene outside of the backdrop in, but the connection between the camera and the subject is still there, its still entrancing, that is just amazing.
On another note, watch the commercials that he has (video), they are so basic, and nearly every commercial just makes you feel good and nastalgic (i'm only 24 and dont remember most of the commercials, but I still get warm and fuzzy because of how basic they messages are). No bullshi*t. Just a story to tell.
jprezant wrote:
Doug-
I just looked up Norman Seeff
Norman was a South African psychiatrist who nutted up and decided he wanted to be a photographer. He moved to NYC. Somehow or another he got some work.
Interestingly enough, it was recognition by Richard Avedon that gave his career a boost. Norman did a photo of Seals & Crofts with an antique bicycle that Avedon really liked. He talked up Norman which opened a lot of doors.
Norman moved to L.A. My wife worked for a business management company and her clients were in the entertainment industry (actors, directors and producers). One of her clients was Norman. We used to go over to his house in west L.A. and sit around his pool while Deb worked on the books. You never could tell who might drop by!
I helped assist Norman on a shoot of Barry White. Deb, who was eight months pregnant, came along. Norman had rented the same sound stage he used for the photos for "Exile on Main Street". Norman sent Deb down to the corner liquor store to buy a half gallon(!) of Chivas Regal. The clerk looked at Deb and said: "Honey, it can't be that bad!"
elliotkramer wrote:
Annie is a contoversial artist. Many fine art photographers do not have very good things to say about her work.
Hmmm, many fine art photographers don't have good things to say about probably the most famous, most successful highest paid commercial photographer working today. Many commercial photographers have the same opinion, I think a lot it comes from jealousy and sexism. She's at the top and is an obvious target.
Good thread, Daniel, and some good points. Especially the centered subjects and the film like loss of detail in the blacks. I have enjoyed and studied AL's work for a long time, and have always been dismayed when some find it "fashionable" to criticize her work.
There is a very good reason she is where she is.
I agree with Evan and the others who point out the tendency to get caught up in technicalities and "rules".
57suzi wrote:
Good thread, Daniel, and some good points. Especially the centered subjects and the film like loss of detail in the blacks. I have enjoyed and studied AL's work for a long time, and have always been dismayed when some find it "fashionable" to criticize her work.
There is a very good reason she is where she is.
I agree with Evan and the others who point out the tendency to get caught up in technicalities and "rules".
thanks, suzi-i think the addition of norman seef to the conversation really underscored the fact that sometimes, the subject can overcome technical flaws in an image and engage the viewer-i'm definitely going to be spending more time studying norman's stuff
Here's some more about Norman. He was not afraid to experiment. In addition to assisting, I did printing for him. Part of his look came from developing film in paper developer, which is a much higher contrast developer. He'd then develop the paper, Agfa Grade 6 in film developer. We'd print through a stocking stretched in an embroidery hoop, that's what got the blacks to bleed.
He never showed art directors proof sheets. He shot a ton of film, 30 or more rolls a shoot. He'd then go through the proofs and pick a frame or two from each. He'd then print 16x20's(!), go through them and cull most and the rest would be shown to the art directors.
Norman also worked 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. I couldn't keep up his pace.
