Thursday, April 23, 2009

Refining My Work

I've spent a lot of time this week working on my photography site, paring it down some. I decided that I had a large enough body of work now that it's not so critical to have examples of most of the photo shoots I've done, but just the best photos. And so I've deleted a lot of images from the site — mostly from the Portraits and Events galleries, but I've also made substantial cuts to the Gods gallery.

I've moved some images of Chris and Scott from the Gods gallery to the Lifestyle gallery, having decided that a guy standing there in his underwear is fine for a modeling portfolio but doesn't necessarily make him a "god." I've also added a few new images of old models to the Gods section, including these three.

My idea of what constitutes a photograph of a "god" is coming together more clearly. The pose is critical; I want these people to look like living statues. But I don't want them to be caricatures — I've had some models say things to me that suggest they think I'm going to stand them there in wrap-up sandals and with a ring of grape leaves on their heads. Not so. It's also not important that every "god" that I shoot has to be perfectly chiseled and good-looking. (Some gods were not attractive [Pan, Loki, Mars]). Basically, I'm learning that either a man can pose or he can't, and to that end, there are still a few guys in my gods gallery that may get cut, who don't look like gods at all, but just guys who are standing there naked. Specifically: What do you think of any, or all, of them? Are these gods? I am trying to get more confident about making my own decisions when it comes to my artwork, but this time, I'd like to hear your yea's or nays, and a simple reason why.


  1. I can agree wholeheartedly about cutting the JC pic and Paul pics. Not only is JC's pose not particularly compelling (no discernible line or texture stands out) but the lighting is a little muddy. Since JC isn't particularly cut (and I mean that objectively--who am I to talk) the lighting, in my opinion needs to be either more striking or softer than it is.

    Paul's pose (or really his wardrobe) is just a touch on the erotic side and confuses the genre.

    I can't decide on the Brian shot. I kind of like it and the object is framed well in the shot.

  2. Kevin's eyes, and his center photo, qualify him as a god. On the others I have no opinion. On the other hand, I really approve of all your additions.

  3. Actually, if any photo of JC appears god-like, it's the second one in your menu - the one with his back to the camera and naked. It strikes me as having a "Zeus looking down on his minions" appearance.

    I'd keep the Jason shot, too, since he is doing a nice statue-type pose. The others I agree about cutting. They're a touch too erotic for what you want to qualify as "gods." I do like the above photos, and agree they should be in the "gods" section.

  4. The only photographs that stand out for me are the two first shots of JC. That may simply be because his looks in general appeal to me the most. There is a calm confidence in his face in the first photograph that suits the category you are creating.

    The others, while all handsome men and appealing photographs do not quite fit the category of gods. Striking mortals, certainly.

  5. I didn't go to the links, but the first one in what you have shown on this post looks god like to me, and the last two, more human. I thought of sculpture when I saw it before I even read what you wrote.

    Refining your work is a good thing. I recently took down my painting site so I can refocus and refine. Our culture rewards quantity, but we all know deep down that its quality that matters.

  6. I also think Jason is really the only god-type pose. The rest are all great, but don't bring to mind the whole gods thing.

  7. Please keep JC!!

  8. Paul is now gone. And JC is down to the one photo that I was thinking about keeping before I posted this; you validated my thoughts.

    I am still on the fence about Brian.