ALFREDofAVALON

ALFREDofAVALON

Lives in United States San Antonio, TX, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at www.AlBolch.com
Joined on Jul 8, 2012

Comments

Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

I'm glad they took a Hasselblad.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2012 at 21:03 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
On DSC_0033k (3) photo in Sandeep Patil's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Very good portfolio!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2012 at 04:16 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

sean lancaster: Each shot makes me think about the event the person is competing in and shows some of the character of the participant. Nicely captured set.

Yes. "Bikini" was actually the wrong description. "Thong" is the word I should have used.

But that's another issue. That's how the runners and Olympic Committee have decided to run their races. Reminds me of Basketball and running shorts of the 70s - but for women.

In any case, it had no, or very little portrait value for the athlete depicted or for one of the Olympic's own.

Adding to the impression given to the audience, by the photographer (and approved by the Photo agency) - the tattoo, this was not flattering, as it might seem. The photo seemed very much like a statement about this athlete, this society, this country, this Olympics, the West, et al as immoral and decadent.

Again, that may or may not be the case, but choosing this venue to editorialize through one's art was stupid, abusive and inappropriate.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 00:54 UTC
In reply to:

darellmatt: This has to be one of the most fascinating photographic and artistic controversies I have come across. The photographs are not "constructive" they are "deconstructive" and are squarely post modern in their aesthetic. As constructive images they are "crap", as decostructive images they are brilliant. I can swing both ways. Personally I am a little bored with both polarities, to me it's like listening to democrats and republicans argue. But there you are, the world is polarized. Some want to enshrine the gods, some want ridicule them. Just be grateful we live in a country where no one gets shot for taking unflattering pictures of a herd of sacred cows...

You are talking about unintended consequences, if the whole shoot was an innocent mistake, OR intended consequences if done on purpose. In either case, I and many here find it unseemly and an abuse of the photographer's position and the Photo Agencies power.

Because the very real consequence to those athletes was ridicule and jokes at their expense.

I can imagine if they had an Public Relations Agent there at the shoot, and they noticed what was going on, they would have stopped the shoot, and told off the photographer and complained bitterly to the Photo Agency.

Would it matter to you if you dressed your kids for a school portrait, and the photographer was doing stupid angels and telling yours and the other kids to make weird ugly faces, etc., etc?

In the analogy above, it wouldn't matter what that photographer does on his own time, but school portraits are not the time and the place for making Art "that pushes the boundaries," deconstructive, post-modern-smodern or otherwise.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2012 at 00:35 UTC
In reply to:

Filthy McNasty: Props to Klamar!
The photo of Trey Hardee is especially befitting that of an East German Olympian circa 1972....in all her glory.

Yea, that's funny.

How do you think he feels about that kind over humor - at his expense?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

ALFREDofAVALON: The objections really have nothing to do with patriotism, but quality - aesthetics, visual grammar, protocol and respect are enough, without even bringing up the subject of patriotism and/or your disdain for patriotism.

His work is not inspiring, indeed. And if any subject should be depicted in an inspiring way, new, fresh, unique or otherwise, it is these athletes who are the very tops in human athletic achievement.

Who the heck thinks they have the right to denigrate their achievement with debasing them as common, by way of humiliating photographic depictions, under the phony guise of "unique or fresh?" They are anything but common. They are heroes, whether you acknowledge that or not. These Olympians have proven their mettle. They are in a VERY exclusive club.

Olympic Portraits are not really the place for photographers (or art directors) to contemplate their navels with the drivel of "fine art" absurdism and purposely offensive imagery.

Coupled with the other odd shots, it seemed there was something else going on. That is why I was so harsh as to motives of the photographer and the French Photo agency. Also, that some where genuinely technically very bad, some where pretty neat - the guy shaking his dread locks - I must admit, I was not certain of anything. But seeing someone getting beat up in a side alley, a caped hero (yes hero), runs in to save them, then asks questions later.

One thing I am pretty certain is that, this post facto apologetics about making Art, modern, post modern, deconstructive or the "artist's right to express himself" nonsense is sadly side stepping some important question me and others had.

We felt this was a phony circling of the wagons, by beatnik pseudo want-to-be artists, seemed very much like defending the victimizers not the victims. The shoddy and/or abuse of these fine young athletes - wherever they were from, Tennessee or Timbuktu, will not go undefended.

Finally, simple enough?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 23:54 UTC
In reply to:

ALFREDofAVALON: The objections really have nothing to do with patriotism, but quality - aesthetics, visual grammar, protocol and respect are enough, without even bringing up the subject of patriotism and/or your disdain for patriotism.

His work is not inspiring, indeed. And if any subject should be depicted in an inspiring way, new, fresh, unique or otherwise, it is these athletes who are the very tops in human athletic achievement.

Who the heck thinks they have the right to denigrate their achievement with debasing them as common, by way of humiliating photographic depictions, under the phony guise of "unique or fresh?" They are anything but common. They are heroes, whether you acknowledge that or not. These Olympians have proven their mettle. They are in a VERY exclusive club.

Olympic Portraits are not really the place for photographers (or art directors) to contemplate their navels with the drivel of "fine art" absurdism and purposely offensive imagery.

Thank you.

It was a play on words, simply put - my humor is not always so simple. And really, simple is best. (I sometimes hear crickets.) But as its been said, anything worthwhile, is not simple. It requires effort. Sometimes great effort - like making the Olympic team or being hired by an International Photo Agency.

Since I wear a cape and mask part time, I am also prone to take up for the abused, hoodwinked and others, like young athletes that were asked to show up at a studio for Olympic promo pictures, getting a pie in their face instead. And seeing that Joe Klamer seemed to be competent in photography, I wondered why he would snap, or really, edit as good, a photo of one of these young subjects caught in a between-shot goofball smirk, a shot as a fluke of the process, not as a "keeper." We all get those, but they usually are not meant as an intended portrait, especially when they are unflattering, making them look like a _________ < [insert mentally challenged phrase here.]

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 23:43 UTC
In reply to:

eNo: I bet half of those complaining wouldn't even know how to pull off the archer shot. Some are not to my liking, in some the lighting is either to harsh in the highlights or shadows for my taste, but in no case will I put this photographer's work down so that I can feel better about mine.

I hate that kind of thing too. So speaking for myself, according to my "How to Photograph Anything" Book, I'd just have him pull back slowly... AND THEN PUSH DOWN ON THE SHUTTER.

And maybe try a few times, from different angles.

How would you pull it off? :)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2012 at 01:06 UTC
In reply to:

harold1968: these are rubbish pictures to show a team of top sportsmen and women proudly representing their country

they are more interesting as "street" or character pictures. However as they are all posed I still think the lighting and background are poor

As the objective here seems to be to show the athletes in the former category then the professional photographer has simply failed on his contract and objectives. No amount of taling about "art" and "interesting" will correct that.

Thanks for saying it a little more succinctly than I could.

You are exactly right.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2012 at 15:15 UTC
In reply to:

sean lancaster: Each shot makes me think about the event the person is competing in and shows some of the character of the participant. Nicely captured set.

And so what event do you think about when you see the close-up of the string bikini and tattoo?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2012 at 06:12 UTC
In reply to:

akaeke: Photos are meant to stir emotions and these photos did just that. So good for Joe Klamar!

Your confusing two senses of the attribute "emotion."

Think about it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2012 at 06:11 UTC
In reply to:

ALFREDofAVALON: The objections really have nothing to do with patriotism, but quality - aesthetics, visual grammar, protocol and respect are enough, without even bringing up the subject of patriotism and/or your disdain for patriotism.

His work is not inspiring, indeed. And if any subject should be depicted in an inspiring way, new, fresh, unique or otherwise, it is these athletes who are the very tops in human athletic achievement.

Who the heck thinks they have the right to denigrate their achievement with debasing them as common, by way of humiliating photographic depictions, under the phony guise of "unique or fresh?" They are anything but common. They are heroes, whether you acknowledge that or not. These Olympians have proven their mettle. They are in a VERY exclusive club.

Olympic Portraits are not really the place for photographers (or art directors) to contemplate their navels with the drivel of "fine art" absurdism and purposely offensive imagery.

If you'll read back your own definition of a hero, you think that your own definition may very well apply to Olympians? Given their effort IS for the betterment of life ("all" is a bit overreaching and not realistic), and that Olympians could very well have chosen to do otherwise (alarm snooze button).

"Simply being an Olympian..."

C'mon, how could it possibly be simple to be an Olympian.

IT is very hard. THEY have worked very hard.

They deserve that recognition, don't you think? I do. Some others do.

And being photographers, we were dismayed when one of our fellow craftsmen, seemed very much to denigrate their achievement with what seemed very much like shoddy work.

Even he admitted his shortcoming and disappointment.

So why try to make his failure into "Art?"

If he tried to wholeheartedly justify as Art, wouldn't he be just a BSer?

When others try to do that, they denigrate Art, and possibly cause Joe Klamer some degree of shameful embarrassment.

A few were good.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2012 at 05:50 UTC
In reply to:

ALFREDofAVALON: The objections really have nothing to do with patriotism, but quality - aesthetics, visual grammar, protocol and respect are enough, without even bringing up the subject of patriotism and/or your disdain for patriotism.

His work is not inspiring, indeed. And if any subject should be depicted in an inspiring way, new, fresh, unique or otherwise, it is these athletes who are the very tops in human athletic achievement.

Who the heck thinks they have the right to denigrate their achievement with debasing them as common, by way of humiliating photographic depictions, under the phony guise of "unique or fresh?" They are anything but common. They are heroes, whether you acknowledge that or not. These Olympians have proven their mettle. They are in a VERY exclusive club.

Olympic Portraits are not really the place for photographers (or art directors) to contemplate their navels with the drivel of "fine art" absurdism and purposely offensive imagery.

Sorry AShimon,

I get a little too... em, I don't know what to call it....

In addition to being a photographer for 30 years, I've read a lot of philosophy, art history, laymen science and so on. Coupled with a very pedantic nature, I guess I can be kind of irritating, when in my teaching mode.

I apologize for my examples, and how they not only seemed to, but actually did draw you and others into hyperbolic examples, meant to illustrate my points.

I don't want to simply state my opinion as to this or that, my tendency is to draw the same conclusion out of you, by mental illustration, so that you will realize why I've stated this or that opinion. I don't want to dictate knowledge, I want to share it.

I'm sorry to you and some of the others here for my heavy handedness. It was a bit mean spirited, born of my own frustrations, and you all certainly don't have anything to do with that. I apologize.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2012 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

Chuck Lantz: His shots are truly unique and truly great, each and every one of them. They present the subjects as real people, who just happen to excel in their chosen sport.

Sometimes being forced by circumstances to work extra fast, under less than ideal conditions, brings out the best in all artists. When I taught art, I used an insanely fast "on the clock" life-drawing exercise, where the students had to sketch a model in progessively shorter time frames, with the final drawing done in under ten seconds.

This resulted in the students being forced to put themselves "in the zone" and drawing more automatically, rather than relying on tricks taught to them. It also resulted in some truly good art.

Chuck, You are totally mixing apples and oranges.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2012 at 01:49 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: If these photographs were exactly the same, but had been taken by Annie Leibowitz, there wouldn't be such fuss.

Annie Liebowitz would not, could not EVER had taken these crappy pics.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2012 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

dccdp: I've looked at the pictures, and all I can say is they are actually interesting. More importantly, they are not cliches, which is after all refreshing in a world where templates are abused everywhere. Yes, maybe the lighting is off in some of them, but hey, it makes them stand out and make a point.

Unpatriotic? Wow! I don't know how Americans see themselves or think, but for me the idea of "unpatriotic", especially when talking about pictures, makes me think about my own country's sad and fairly recent history of being a Eastern European communist country. Before 1989, "unpatriotic" was the label communist propaganda put on every item that didn't strictly follow their awfully narrow view of the world. Come on, where are the American openness and diversity we all hear about?...

Personally, for me, this has nothing to do with Patriotism,
so don't go there for that negative criticism.

I would be as critical of this drivel,
if the team was American, French, Nigerian
or from the lovely Island of Schmossizel.

These athletes are the best of the best,
from their country's elite.
Shouldn't they be spared this mess,
for so lofty a feat?

Poetry's not even my thing. (Good thing I can't sing.)
By the way - Do you Yahoo, Google or Bing?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

Rawmeister: You go to the gig and because the guy who hired you didn't have the knowledge or communications skills, now you have wrong equipment, no pre visualized concept, and are unprepared. What's worse, the other photogs have everything.
So now your angry. Your first instinct is to just leave the scene.
But wait - your a photographer and really need the money to keep up with equipment devalue at 50% first year and 30% second. So you do the job anyways, but find it hard to really give a darn, but your creative instincts say "do what you feel (which is angry)", be creative, ignore convention. And so you come up with poorly conceived work fueled by anger and some people see it as good becuse it's offbeat. The gun in my face shot is pure anger expression.
It's not really appropriate and your career is hurt.
If Klamar had an agent I think he is fired now.
No agent? Why does the "hire a photog" job get handed down till it can go no lower, like a receptionist for example. That is the question!

Very interesting reconstruction. Very plausible.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 21:47 UTC
In reply to:

Martin_Kay: Well... an ape could have taken these exposures- almost. These exposures don't even rate pretentious. My guess is that maybe something sinister lies behind these shots- they are some sort of statement- maybe contempt.

Unfortunately, I have that sad feeling too, by both the photographer and the Photo Agency.

I went to the photog's site and he appears very capable. And given the Agencies prestigious past, I don't understand why they would direct him to purposely produce such poor work and/or edit and approve such terrible results.

This failure could have been prevented before, during and after the shoot.

I hope I'm wrong. Sad.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 21:45 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Just been looking at some of the others - I think as a collection, they are brilliant: in fact, the first part of this entire, tired Olympics thing that has actually made me smile.

Klamar should be proud of this work, and any folks who think the images unprofessional or unpatriotic needs to chill out, and gain a little perspective.

Brian

Anathematizing? I must admit. I looked that one up. I don't think I was "cursing" or "condemning" the offending parties, writing shallow unthoughtful glib posts in favor of subpar technique and aesthetics for the sake of phony notions of artistic expression.

Forgive the sternness of your teacher's vigor and rigor.

Maybe you should drop this class and sign up for basket-weaving. The baskets will come in handy , when your foraging for fruits and nuts.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 21:15 UTC
In reply to:

twstriving: I didn’t know Trey Hardee was a Special Olympian (see headline photo). In fact, I have no idea who Trey Hardee is.

And then I (we) come across trite flippant remarks like yours: "...don't you think the photographer has the right to express his view to the masses?
If you don't like the photos, don't look at them. I and many more people like them. Get over it."

Oh brother. You seem to not have any clue at all.

But hey, you got "a life!" you special person you.

Or were you normal, and wanted these beyond normal people brought down to your level? I'm confused. Are you a super star with a super life, or just a normal guy, wanting non-normal "unique" "fresh" work for the masses, by a photographer that has the right to express his disdain for Olympians?

That's normal?

I know what. Pick up the phone and have a Reality TV show about your life. That shouldn't be too hard.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 18:42 UTC
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »