Blaine
Mr. Hollywood
What you get with that is: "well, it's by so-and-so so it must be good and I just don't understand it so I'm going to vote it up because I don't want to look stupid."500lb Productions said:I can both AGREE and DISAGREE with that.
On the one hand, you have a point.
But on the other hand, some pieces are more understandable within the context of the photographer. Imagine one piece of LaChappelles work without the greater context of his collected work??? Knowing his other work CERTAINLY helps to understand each piece.
Or Mapplethorpe. Imagine finding a floral of his that you just love... and knowing how much you (not you personally, you the generic viewer) may despise his controversial work makes you appreciate that floral even more.
I think most art should be taken together with the artist in order to be understood.
Take the detaurated blue book picture... Is the selective desaturation prevalent in his other work? Or has he never ever done that, but felt it just simly had to be done for this one piece? It certainly could, and probably should, make a difference in how the piece is interpreted.
I guess it turns out, once I think it through, that I disagree more than I agree.
or
"Well, that's better than his other stuff, so I want to give him extra props."
A work of art should be able to stand on its own merits.