In article <8v5p169chnbassatctnr1hkhvrjlf2db1q@4ax.com>, skinnysteve
<skinnysteve@stringbean.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:59:14 +0200, dirty-dan@hornyrob.com wrote:
>
> >Copyright hornyrob com | All Rights Reserved | Private Viewing Only
> >Large Liquidations Of Items Occuring On Ebay Link On Website
> >Anna Marek Fan Club Site: www annamarek com
> did hamilton ever shot anything in sharp focus?
Are you putting him down because of his style? Hope not.
He developed a style that was then his own, unique and, according to
all the evidence, so popular that it propelled him to the top of his
profession. There is no doubt he was, during the sixties, seventies,
eighties and nineties, "the most popular and successful art
photographer the world has ever seen" (from his web site
hamilton-archives.com)
And, like the Beatles, who have not yet been toppled from their lofty
position despite breaking up forty (yes, _forty_ years ago, amazing,
isn't it?) he has not yet been superceded at the top.
Sure, there are other successful and highly-popular photographers.
Other successful artists don't try to imitate Hamilton but some do,
nonetheless, produce material that is faintly similar. Jacques
Bourboulon, Glenn Holland, Don Marcus, Sandro Cignali, Mauro
Bertoncello, Violeta Gomez, Hiromi Saimon, Ayako Parks, Chris Nikolson,
even a very small number of the anonymous guys whose material appears
in some of these newsgroups, do a great job of presenting their own
unique material in styles that are, to a greater or less degree,
sometimes vaguely reminiscent of Hamilton or, at least, probably have
their origins in the admiration of "the master". The alternative is the
mindless, brainless, talentless shit that dominates the newsgroups and
which, rightly and thankfully, keeps the authors totally anonymous.
Other famous artists, like Ron Oliver, Graham Ovenden, Stanaman, Sally
Mann, Jock Sturges, Fabio Cabral, Bill Henson, Irene Ionesco, don't
look anything like Hamilton's style but, nonetheless, do earn a
deserved reputation for quality because they have their own styles.
Only one talentless shit-head that I know of, Alexander Fradis, became
well-known in here despite never producing one single photograph with
any redeeming value whatsoever. He was a lying, thieving,
daughter-raping, drug-addicted scumbag who stayed out of jail only
because he was a CIA agent. But I digress.
Sure, there will of course be many who don't like Hamilton's work, just
as there are people who don't like jazz. But no one goes to a Brubeck
concert to ask "Does he play anything but jazz?"
This newsgroup was founded by people who love (or loved, he's old and
retired now) David Hamilton and his subtle presentation of fragile
young girls in an erotic mood. To photograph such a thing today "in the
clear" can get the photographer a jail sentence. It might not have been
much different then. Rather than searching for something from him "in
sharp focus" better a critic be content to let his fans be damned
grateful he shot anything at all.
However, to answer your question, yes he did shoot in sharp focus. The
mood of his work was achieved by means other than shooting out of
focus. (And no, he didn't use vaseline!). If he were to shoot
out-of-focus, it would show up in the result, unattractively.
He also, from time to time, was commissioned to produce, let's say,
advertising material, portraits, architectural pictures (he started his
working life as a trained architect) and similar. Those pictures were
often not in accord with the soft style that made him a household name.
But you would not see them in here or on his web site because they were
not necessarily pictures that would make a fan gasp in delight.
Instead, they made the client gasp in delight because they got more
than they hoped for, despite his fee being higher than most.
Ask what price you want for your art in a gallery, the only true test
of an artist's popularity will be at an auction. And Hamilton's erotic
portraits sell at auction for prices around $10,000 to $12,000. Let's
hope that most people in here have the good taste to appreciate his
work and enjoy it for what it is, rather than what it is not.
|
|