The other day I was wondering whatever happened to that guy, you know... the Humans of New York guy. I mean, he was practically the be all and end all guy for a coupla years running. Seemed everybody loved the guy, had a gazillion billion followers. And looking back, not hard to see why- he had positive, feel good sound bite stories illustrated with complimentary photos.
Of course, he did attract a vocal minority of haters, mostly from "the street photographer community" who took umbrage at his being considered... "a street photographer," as he was often referred to. No serious photographer was he, they were quick to point out- just an overly popular, no talent hack! How could anyone (anyone!) take him seriously?
And serious "art" photographer he was (and probably is still) not. Actually his photographic "style" reminds me of another "just the facts" type of photographer/typologist- Bill Cunningham. The latter just took simple, straightforward documentary snap shots of people in their latest fashion attire. No photographic art aspirations- any style to be found was in his subject's attire. Brandon Stanton's main aim was exposing the person's unique story, the positive feel good vignette illustrated by a well exposed, properly focused portrait that showed his subject in their best light. Brandon was a true "story teller," the photograph was secondary. Despite that, a lot of people assumed he was a really good photographer because the photographs were technically proficient, and everyone always smiled- I'm assuming the latter, again, since I was never a fan. And the "good photographer" part is what irked some people, especially those who took "the art of photography" tres serious.
At first, I guess, I was one of those- until I rather quickly realized that (as I said) he really wasn't about the photography, but the story. I have no idea if he considers himself a serious or good portrait photographer, I'd imagine he does to some extent- after all, he certainly has been successful! And to be honest, I don't think I would have been able to handle and come out of the whole FAME thing as relatively unscathed as he has, particularly at his age at the time.
The NY Mag story asserts that he has a rather formulaic process which he forces upon individuals to get the feel good, adversity conquering vibe that appeals to his fans. Seems it, but then, doesn't any successful artist, entrepreneur, whatever operate on honing their skills into as efficient a formula as possible? And it certainly does seem that he definitely has done far more good for certain people he's featured than any long lasting harm. Like I said, never followed the guy that closely (more like, at all)- but it stands to reason there would be more dirt and retaliation on the guy if he was up to no good.
Years back, I thought he would end up in some branch of documentary film making since storytelling is his main thing. Apparently not, but hey, I wish the dude well- maybe, besides making money for himself and his subjects, he'll even learn to take a decent portrait one day.
No comments:
Post a Comment