In every article I read about him, he is described as pioneering the concept of environmental portraiture. A lot of the time the artist doesn't even take up a quarter of the picture but rather his/her environment does. I've noticed that a lot of the photos I viewed didn't seem to have a lot of contrast between the subject and his/her environment but rather he wanted the subject to be a part of it. There had to be no separation or contrast.
2. What do you believe are the artists conceptual and/or thematic intentions?
I've read that most of Newman's work was editorial. So you would have to believe his intention was to draw the reader/viewer into the article or concept in the magazine. I think he does a great job of showing us as the viewers what we'll learn from the article/concept. The other thing i've noticed is that the environment that goes with the subject is not always the same location. It's not always where they produce their work, with their finished products, etc. It seems as though he photographs the subject where they are most comfortable whether that be during the creation process or the final execution .
3. How do you personally respond to these choices and intents?
I find the photos that Newman has taken to be raw and pure intent. We are not only being introduced to Newman's subjects but also how he interacts with each of them and how he views their crafts as artists.
4. Reason why I chose this artist?
To be honest we learned about certain portrait artists in my Darkroom course last week and Newman really stood out to me. How he uses the environment to explain the subject more than the actual profile is exceptional.
No comments:
Post a Comment