1. Which of the artist's many technical choices are of interest to you and why?
As I was doing my research I noticed that Halsman has a list of principles or guidelines that he continuously goes back to.
1. The rule of the direct approach
2. The rule of unusual technique
3. The rule of the added unusual feature
4. the rule of the missing feature
5. the rule of compounded features
6. the rule of the literal or ideographic method.
All of these really caught my attention because they all say to go for whatever your concept may be but remember to analyze after the fact and see what you're missing and how can you either compromise that or continue with it.
2. What do you believe are the artist's conceptual and/or thematic intentions?
I relate a lot to Halsmans work a lot because i feel as though his concepts are constantly evolving. He goes straight to what he wants to photograph and finds his meaning and purpose to the art later on. As I was reading about it, I learned that he started in portraits, went towards conceptually abstract photography, and dove into architectural photography while living in New York. What made him so successful was his ability to adapt and broaden his concepts in photography.
3. How do you personally respond to these choices and intentions?
To be honest I have no idea what kind of photography really speaks to me. So to understand that there are artists that have successfully bounced from one to other is very reassuring. Although the idea of bouncing from different styles may seem all over the place, but he was able to successfully execute and produce his skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment