Frankly, I'm suprised these shots/article were considered worthy of publication here, and the naïveté of the copy is mind-blowing.
As others here implied, much to my relief as I felt my initial reaction, the style is as old as the hills. One would have to have been living in a cloud (possible) - or a camper - for a very long period of extended solitude to imagine anything here to be new or ground-breaking. I can recall some shots of Michael's in this style - whirling people - that were so much better. It ain't what you do...
I think we have discussed the problem here several times: every darn thing has been done, better, by somebody already. Be it this cotton wool world (which, incidentally, I like), nudes, countryside, desert, mountain or ocean, another photographer did it years ago.
That's absolutely no reason not to do it yourself; that's absolutely no reason to republish.
In a nutshell, it sort of encapsulates the dilemma facing the amateur: is what I do worth doing, is it any good and why am I really doing it? Within that same nutshell we can find the salvation of the pro: he does what he does because he has generally been asked to do it, thus providing both reason and motivation for the act of photography.
Nothing new at all in these images, neither ground-breaking.
Just according to me, an honest and deep search from these people to express themselves in a way that personally touch me more than another of the million pics of the same spot of the Gran Canyon with the same light or another of the same billions anorexic glamour fashion shot we are inundated each year.
The style is as old as the hill, yet in photography it is quite fresh compare to the 90% of what is produced per day in this media.
I remember seeing this post here: http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=41374
. Done a century ago and over and over again since...
but I think the actitude of searching freshness in ones work is always helphy, even if you are inspired by oldies.
Every damn thing has been done, better, by somebody already: yes! by the way, the great Avedon portraits approach has been done hundred of years ago by genious like Velasquez, Goya etc...so we should have banned Avedon to bring to us a very very old dejà vu in a whorst form? His fashion shots are directely inspired from end 18 century painting, nothing new either. Man ray approach? Done before he saw the light in this world while 99% of what we see now from digital cameras is concerned about sharpness, resolution and maximum image quality to reproduce man's testosterones ego's needs.
In that context, these images are like drinking some fresh water after all the repetitive pictures we are building our monologue around. There are not new, revolutionary, just good.
The only terrains were photography has brought really new language or visions, that has never been explored before in other medias is:
-Altitude and space photography
Thanks Michael to put this article here. Is it naive? yes it is, in a very good way.
My post here was naive as well.
Or if we are touched by these pictures, we are naive? Yes, we are.
But I WANT to be naive. It is very healphy.