I have always enjoyed looking at Nadav’s work. I guess it has been a while since I last tuned in but my reaction to this is pretty negative. It feels to me the most “unphotographic” that I have seen of his work, the most manipulated. Of course I understand it is all manipulated, but many of his portraits have some tone in the background which sort of softens the blend between the shadow, the person and the backdrop. What I am feeling here is bad drop-shadow 101. Photography reduced to graphic design.
Which sort of brings me to another peeve, the way that graphic design has become so intertwined with the Obama administration, for example the silly podium sign “Office of the President Elect of the United States” with the faux POTUS shield, not to mention that the office is not an “Office” at all.
Consider also Shepard Fairey’s photo-cum-illustration of TPEOTUS:
The Obama O::
Stays Crunchy in Milk!
I’m feeling hit over the head with branding. Are there that many out of work graphic designers?
Perhaps it is commentary by Nadav to turn the administration into cut-out-dolls? If we can paper over our financial troubles by printing money perhaps we can also design our way out of crisis?
And I voted for the guy.
few, i feel better now. my gurlfriend send me this email yesterday morning….doen’t she know who Nadav is, I should learn to keep her quiet….
“Hi cutie. I was looking at the portraits in nytimes mag by some guy, Nadav Kamer or something like that. You could have done a better job, but his photos are pretty nice.
Go look..it’s a whole gallery of shots of Obama’s new peeps.”
and btw, about that O’bama guy, I told you so….and i voted for him too….
I don’t think the fact that a media/graphic savvy campaign should in any way at all considered a negative mark on Obama. We live in the age of images. We as photographs know that more than anyone. For Obama and his people to understand that, to know that in addition to good policies (and some rhetoric peppered in there), people can be moved by what they see- some colors, good composition, implied meaning for something better, not only shows that they “get it” but I feel reinforces what we as visual artists are trying to do all the time. I want my pictures, what I make, to move people. Hell if I could get one of my images to do what that logo did for Obama’s campaign and presumably now, the world, I’d be running through the streets in celebration. Fortunately as we know there’s more to the man than graphic design. A writer, a scholar, a thinker, a human being (and no doubt, mistake maker). Give the guy a chance.
@jordana:
the difference is “we” are selling as photographers. the more politics becomes about branding the worse off.
but that horse left the barn years ago.
I think it says more about the electorate, especially the youngest newest supporters, than the candidate.
the internet has the ideology of advertising, clean shiny screens with bold graphic colours. webicons, favicons, aqua, buttons, etc. This is the first internet president, like JFK was the first TV president.
I’m not selling a thing (save a few prints here and there), a headshot, etc. I didn’t become a photographer to sell anything. I became a photographer for the same reason that I imagine the logo-makers of the now-famous Obama red/white/blue rainbow/path to the future/horizon/dawn of a new day “O” logo makers did- to create something with meaning and with the ability to inspire change/rage/hope/something. It may be a bit presumptuous of me to assume I know why those people are doing what they are doing (although I suppose we can ask them at the Danziger opening on Thursday) but I guess what I’m saying is that I got into photography so that my pictures would do what what the logo did for the campaign, so that my images would act upon people and perhaps, inspire people to act upon something/someone else as a result of seeing them…
ps: although I have to admit, many of the candid photos of Obama make him look like a movie/TV president than the real thing…maybe I’m still in shock, maybe it has something to do with postmodernism…or maybe he’s just too cool
…or maybe it has to do with what I am saying, how the electorate wants a brand…
otherwise we would be turned off no?
think of it as post-millenial-populism-socialism for a capitalist society. in this case I should have said stays crunchy in soy milk.
agreed. the electorate, indeed. my main issue was with your “and i voted for the guy” comment at the end of your posting as if the campaign’s branding was somehow Obama’s fault/a sign of a faulty/empty administration…i don’t think they are really related. it certainly does say something about changing times, as you said, and i’d say, maybe even something good about the kind of role we can play in the future as visual artists…
hmm, if you think anything is unintentional, I’d think again.
give the people what they want…
intentional, most definitely. intention being a sign of a lousy administration to come, not so much.