M▲NU

Untitled (2012)

This image doesn’t quite work. The swath of light falling across the back and the hard shadow cast by his hair, shoulder and arched back is freaking gorgeous.

This is digital, so assuming a RAW file (which if you are shooting digital and not shooting RAW, then like why bother), there’s definitely going to be enough detail of the reflection in that globe to pull out details in order to evoke a better picture of the room (a la Escher’s famous self-portrait).

And the lighting is weird. The highlight by his left hip is probably, what 5 stops over. The pool over his right shoulder 3 stops. You’re getting bounce back from that pool onto the surface of the desk and light ostensibly reflecting off the floor is spilling around under the desk.

Further, I really don’t understand the two objects choice–compositionally an odd # of things is almost always preferable; I think the left hand that you can see curled under the right side is supposed to balance this. It doesn’t and wouldn’t even if it was more apparent. It would need to be holding something.

Thus, there either needed to be a third object, the plant needs to move from his left side to his right or that black drape behind the globe light needs to be removed. Actually, any way you slice it that black drape–although it does extend the dynamic range of the image–adds zilch to the proceedings.

Robert Weissner Bree Addams (2013)

As it is, the framing functions. The desk more or less echoes Ms. Addams knees; the window edge starts a wee bit shy of the first vertical third but the vertical blinds and radiant light not only accentuate her form it contributes an implicit leftward momentum to the image.

Her weight is supported by her right arm and foot–her left leg shifts behind the other at the knee, her left hand is extended only for the sake of balance. It’s interesting because this posture suggests between her arms and torso a form close enough to round up to an equilateral triangle–drawing attention to her breasts (exquisitely semi-silhouetted behind sheer fabric), reiterating the shape of her pubic hair. .

With only this image to go on, I’d be pretty excited about digging in to the image maker’s other work. Alas, I think the praise here needs to go to Ms. Addams.

Don’t get me wrong, Weissner isn’t half-bad. He’s got enough technical chops to give his work a faux art sheen. The trouble is: he seems to see himself as a Dan Smith when his work is inline with the ‘art’ as a pretext for sating voyeurism of someone like Fox Photo-Art.

Credit where it’s due: technical acumen is nothing to sneeze at and this is one image is lovely and I certainly prefer Weissner to Fox Photo-Art’s rubbish. Unfortunately, there is so little distinguishing their work from each other or the scads of other female-nudes-all-day-every-day-because-I-own-a-dSLR-and-can-afford-to-hire-beautiful-models that I just have to shake my head and close another tab.