SF Meetup @ opening of The Sartorialist's photo show, NYC Jan 22

[robin]

Originally Posted by Connemara

What a horrid write-up.
"but I felt that here was the first real fine art photographer of the digital age."
Why don't you tell us why you don't agree?

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by robin

Why don't you tell us why you don't agree?
ummm... because digital photography has been "high" art since at least the mid-90s and there are hundreds of photographers using the medium who are much more accomplished than the Sartorialist. I am sure he would tell you the same himself.

 

[robin]

Originally Posted by iammatt

because digital photography has been "high" art since at least the mid-90s and there are hundreds of photographers using the medium who are much more accomplished than the Sartorialist. I am sure he would tell you the same himself.
See? That's fair, critical, and reasonable. Calling the author drunk is none of those.

 

[Connemara]

Originally Posted by robin

See? That's fair, critical, and reasonable. Calling the author drunk is none of those.

 

[visionology]

Photography and art are worth what people are willing to pay for them. While I don't feel his photographs are worth $1500 a print, if he can get that, good for him.

 

[Cantabrigian]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Arthur Miller once said that there was an essential "tragic element" to Cartier-Bresson's photographs, and I would say that most good photographs contain something of that element; I don't see that in the Sartorialist's photos though I daresay that many of those subjects would be angry if they were in fact, subjects of some "tragic" context.

I doubt many of them wish to appear grotesque on a voluntary basis.

So you don't have a problem with what he does but you got to drop a couple names?

On an unrelated note, I don't know why people get their panties in such a bunch whenever the Sartorialist is brought up. It's a fashion blog pure and simple. He does a good job at what he does and seems to enjoy it.

I suppose you can take issue with his pronouncements about what classic menswear is supposed to be but I don't think that there's a real fashionista that doesn't pretend to some interest in the classics.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Cantabrigian

So you don't have a problem with what he does but you got to drop a couple names?

On an unrelated note, I don't know why people get their panties in such a bunch whenever the Sartorialist is brought up. It's a fashion blog pure and simple. He does a good job at what he does and seems to enjoy it.

I suppose you can take issue with his pronouncements about what classic menswear is supposed to be but I don't think that there's a real fashionista that doesn't pretend to some interest in the classics.

Well, there are tons of gratuitous "photographers" taking random digital pictures, but I don't complain about their work, or lack thereof.

Either way, it's the fact that his apparent blogging has been taken to the realms of "high photography" that sort of grates me.

 

[Cantabrigian]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Either way, it's the fact that his apparent blogging has been taken to the realms of "high photography" that sort of grates me.

Maybe that's why I feel so little indignation when the Sartorialist comes up.

I've always considered him as like something of a less pretentious / less marketing-driven GQ rather than an artsy photographer (not that it would matter since I know basically zilch about artsy photography) or a modern day Apparel Arts.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Cantabrigian

Maybe that's why I feel so little indignation when the Sartorialist comes up.

I've always considered him as like something of a less pretentious / less marketing-driven GQ rather than an artsy photographer (not that it would matter since I know basically zilch about artsy photography) or a modern day Apparel Arts.

But very advertising-driven.