Richard Avedon’s photography translated to videography…
Most video is pretty terrible.
Because video cameras for so long were big and bulky, they were put on tripods and used simply to capture ‘reality’, such as it was.
The merging of art and video has long intrigued me, and I think that the more we start to think of small digital cameras as the video equivalent of Leicas, the more we can start to drive video toward art in a greater sense – but art with content.
So I was delighted to find Determined Divas on Prof. Ken Kobre’s fantastic new website.
The program, run by Bev Jackson is interesting, but the video is mesmerizing.
To me it captures the power of work like Richard Avedon’s still photography and translates it to video.
Raw.
Startling.
I have emailed the newspaper to see if there is an embeddable version around so I can post it here.
In the meantime, I urge you to click on the link.
It’s worth the trip.
You can find the work here.
2 Comments
Chuck Fadely December 20, 2009
I love video that’s shot with the eye of an artist.
But the premise for bringing the mention of equipment into this post seems a little off base.
Richard Avedon used the equivalent of a big, bulky studio camera: a huge, tripod-mounted 8X10 view camera with a crew for his portraits – far more cumbersome than any broadcast camera – and not a handheld camera.
And Will Yurman’s ‘Determined Divas’ appears to have been shot in a well-lit and carefully controlled setting with a tripod-mounted DSLR, which is far more difficult to shoot with than any full-size video camera. Definitely not the video equivalent of a Leica.
Cameras are just tools to achieve an end, and while new technology can create waves of style in an art form – think of the current rage for ‘high dynamic range’ photos – the end result depends on the eye of the artist and not the equipment.
My point is that it’s the person behind the camera that makes the difference, not the gear. It’s the artist, not the brush. Jackson Pollock splashed paint out of a can, while Chuck Close painstakingly fills in tiny little squares. If you forced Pollock to paint in a 1″ square with a small brush, you wouldn’t get a Chuck Close painting. Nor would you get a Pollock if Close could splash paint around.
I love the Hatfield/McCoy thing you and Nino have going on. It’s endlessly entertaining! But really, both of you, it’s not about the gear.
Gear is only relevant to a specific job. You need a different set of tools to build a battleship than to sharpen your lawn mower – although both deal with metal work. A teen working on his car in the driveway is fine with Sears tools, while a professional mechanic at the dealership is going to have Snap-On. And someone just beginning to learn video isn’t going to buy a Varicam and HMI lights, nor would someone shooting an ad for Tag-Heurer – with talent costing a zillion bucks an hour (plus mistresses) – use a Flip cam.
In still photography, you use a Leica for different things than you use a view camera for – different tools for different jobs. And in video, you use a Panavision camera for different things than you use a handycam.
And depending on who is behind the lens, you can get garbage or genius from any camera.
Let’s hear it for talent, not for gear!
Nino December 12, 2009
“Because video cameras for so long were big and bulky, they were put on tripods and used simply to capture ‘reality’, such as it was.”
You just have no clue do you Michael? How do you come up with all this nonsense.
Even at my age I can assure you that I can keep my big camera on my shoulder ten times longer and steadier that you can hold a small camcorder with your hands in front of you.
“The merging of art and video has long intrigued me, and I think that the more we start to think of small digital cameras as the video equivalent of Leicas, the more we can start to drive video toward art in a greater sense – but art with content.”
I really think that you would benefit from some fundamental art classes before you start talking about art.