You know when you only need a few hundred more words for a paper, and just grasp at any flimsy idea to stretch it out? That's what a lot of artist statements read like. Which is sad, because I think photos can definitely be way more than just "oh look, the light hit the object in a cool way" or "wow a that person has great grasp on the rule of thirds".
When I read a shitty, inflated artist statement I instantly become preoccupied with tearing down the artists work and ostensible vision, as opposed to looking at it impartially and liking it or finding something more meaningful in the photo using my own experiences, ideas, and perception. I think the best approach is to exclude a statement altogether.
In the case of a someone working from a more documentarian angle, written work accompanying the photos is fine. A backstory to the issue being covered, or a brief contextualization usually adds something as opposed to misdirects the audience.
I think her artist statement is fine, and makes sense in relation to the work. Her method is pretty cool, but doesn't always work out. Part 2 looks like ordinary photos with the background blacked out, not a fusion of several images.
I really like desaturated colours and landscape stuff in general, so the rest were pretty interesting.
Topic: the photography thread. (Read 717441 times)