DSLRUsers.com

Hey All,

Caught the Bill Henson exhibition at the Art Gallery on NSW last night. I think it is going to VIC soon - not sure when.

It needs to be recommended - some of the pictures are amazingly composed and the use of light and shadow not unlike some of the old Flemish masters. Some of the others I just didn't get!!

Well worth a visit check out the following link for more detail ...
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/sub/bi ... index.html

Paull

Bill Henson is one of Australia's best-known photogrophers - overseas.
It appears that Australians (including me) aren't aware of him as we should be.

There is another link to more of his work below:

http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson

I find some of his work is quite confronting, especially in its subject matter. And his style is the antithesis of, say, Max Dupain.

There was a very interesting article about Bill Henson in yesterday's Australian for those who might be interested.

cricketfan wrote:Bill Henson is one of Australia's best-known photogrophers - overseas.
It appears that Australians (including me) aren't aware of him as we should be.

There is another link to more of his work below:

http://www.roslynoxley9.com.au/artists/18/Bill_Henson

I find some of his work is quite confronting, especially in its subject matter. And his style is the antithesis of, say, Max Dupain.

There was a very interesting article about Bill Henson in yesterday's Australian for those who might be interested.

Hi

I have never been a great fan of Henson as I have of Max Dupain. Hensons photos bring up a very interesting point tho.

He uses flare, CA, and all of the other bad points that have been brought up in this forum elsewhere as being a no-no.

So when does a photo become a work of art and what is a work of art? Is art the culmination of all of the things we are taught not to do? As far as photographic rules are concerned Bill Henson throws them out the door so are they photographs or works of art?

Sorry to stir it up guys

Chris

G'day Chris

Well, I think it all comes back to the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Art is so subjective, isn't it? What works for me, may not for you and vice versa.

Lots of photographers break rules - some break them all the time. What we normally refer to as "rules" though, often revolves around exposure.

Unfortunately, it's too easy to think that the camera knows what the exposure for your shot should be, but it doesn't.
It only tells you an exposure based on either averaging a scene, or alternatively a particular small part of the scene.

The photographer is the person who should determine the exposure, based on their own interpretation of the scene.

It's good to break the rules - that's how unique shots usually evolve.
But, IMHO, you need to know the rules before you know how and why to break 'em!

Cheers
Trevor

cricketfan wrote:G'day Chris

Well, I think it all comes back to the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Art is so subjective, isn't it? What works for me, may not for you and vice versa.

Lots of photographers break rules - some break them all the time. What we normally refer to as "rules" though, often revolves around exposure.

Unfortunately, it's too easy to think that the camera knows what the exposure for your shot should be, but it doesn't.
It only tells you an exposure based on either averaging a scene, or alternatively a particular small part of the scene.

The photographer is the person who should determine the exposure, based on their own interpretation of the scene.

It's good to break the rules - that's how unique shots usually evolve.
But, IMHO, you need to know the rules before you know how and why to break 'em!

Cheers
Trevor

Totally agree Trevor - I have tried so many times here on this forum to indicate exactly what you have said.

I read earlier an article that said there was too much emphasis in magazines and elsewhere on the technical advantages etc of this or that camera when in the end it is the photograph that is important and in the final analysis whether you yourself like what you have shot or not. Gaining knowledge is essential but as we both have basically said it is the picture that is important and that is in the eye of the beholder.

Cheers

Chris

I'm sure some of his photography is great but I must say I'm not much of a fan.

Some of his shots just look plain average to me considering he is a pro.



This one to me looks like a bad case of camera shake from a shot taken out of a car window.



And I've seen many shots on this forum that top this one.



I think I'm sounding a bit critical but maybe someone can explain to me why these shots are worth paying for. What am I missing

G'day Jonesy
I pretty much agree with you.
But I would say that we probably look at his work from the perspective of photographers, which we are.
I think if you asked artists to look at Henson's work, you may get responses that are a bit different from ours.
What I like about the first two shots of his that you displayed is the overall mood. I think they are quite fiftyish, with subtle colour tonings and almost abstract subject matter.
I definitely agree with you on the last one - if I found this in my camera after a day's shooting, I'd delete it!
A lot of his other work with waif-like children and/or homeless people really is a bit too confornting to me, although doubtless there would be many others who might appreciate them.
Cheers
Trevor

To add to this thread I would also say that when someone becomes well known, be it a photo or painting or even a writer, their future can be enhanced by good PR and not by further great work. Of course there are exceptions to this rule but it goes back to the eye of the beholder.

A good example of this is restaurants. I have been to many great restaurants around the world and some of them remain great i.e. food.

But there are those that I have been enamoured by only to return and have a bloody awful feed, and very often it is still the same chef.

Cheers

Chris

I was talking with a friend yesterday about the attitudes of a lot of pro tennis players (I'm not going to mention any names!!) and how some of them can be very cocky and over confident (note I said "some"!). We were assosciating this confidence with their levels of success and I think this also relates to artists like this.

I personally wouldn't have the balls to pick out some of my photos that I think look or feel good to me for fear of others tearing them apart..which is where I think artists like Henderson have real nuts!

On the other hand, I can't say I'm a big fan of his work..As has already been mentioned, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I guess respecting a person and admiring their work can be kept separate.

Liam =]

I work at the Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery... and from what I remember being told, he's primarily a 35mm film photographer... and he's at the top of his league for getting 35mm film to the size and quality that he gets.

Can you tell me what sort of price can he command for his prints, please Leigh?

Not thinking of buying one - just curious as to relative value.

Thanks
Trevor

I'm not one of the sellers (I'm one of the main techies... seeing as there are two of us...) but from what I remember, some of them go for around $3000 which, when you look at the size and quality, isn't bad... but I'm not really sure. Some I think hit around the 10 mark and he can certainly command it, but I'm not altogether sure.

I go back to work in a week... I'll ask later on.

He has a show of new work this year, I do know that.

I remember a mention of a collaboration between Henson and Richard Tognetti sometime in April(?) of this year ... maybe that is the new work you are talking about.

Some of the prints I saw were about 1 metre plus in size ... so pretty huge prints. Although things do seem larger after a few drinks (fishing stories etc.)!!


paul PS Yes - the Tognetti of the Aust Chamber Orchestra!!

I visited this exhibition today and had a good walk around. My opinion of what I saw goes something like this....His black and white work leaves me cold. I got nothing from it emotionally and it simply did'nt connect with me. Some of his colour work I thought was masterful....and reinforced my beleif that some images need to be very large in order to exhert their power. His use of dark rich, saturated colour, a device used by other noteable photographers, is alway appealing and does to some extent give the works a painterly look. Some of his subject matter...well..I think he borrowed something from David Hamilton who does that kind of thing better. The very best of his work is supurb but I got the feeling the exhibition was padded out with a lot of sub-standard fillers.
Well worth the $10. There is alway value in looking at the work of other photographers.

paull wrote:I remember a mention of a collaboration between Henson and Richard Tognetti sometime in April(?) of this year ... maybe that is the new work you are talking about.

I doubt this'll be the case with the exhibition this year as they tend to showcase really really new stuff for their major artists that hasn't been seen anywhere else before it (like that Tracey Moffatt stuff from last year) but I'll know more as the exhibition date approaches.

cricketfan wrote:
Well, I think it all comes back to the old saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
Art is so subjective, isn't it? What works for me, may not for you and vice versa.

Trevor

Art is ???
An interesting interpretation regarding Art was,

Humour makes us laugh,
Discovery makes us understand,
Art, makes us marvel. (not when we look at the picture, but when its looking at us !

At least it sorta helps me ...

Here is my interpretation...

I went to the exhibition at the weekend. Was really looking forward to it. I hadn't heard of him before and the posters all around town had me itching to see it.

I took the guided tour because I'll admit I was having difficulty in ascertaining what made these pictures great. The tour guide said something about Hensons reason for taking the photo. He doesn't want any meaning attributed to it, its just a photograph he has taken and whether it works or not is up to the beholder.
I thought about this for a while, looking at the photos face value....then examining the light and shadows....anbd then the presentation......and finally at the content.

The content is where I got a bit confused. A large number of the shots had pre -pubescent kids naked and sometimes in sexual positions. In some these photos were pasted onto backdrops of an LA cityscape at night, with photo paper pasted on top in what look like random patterns.

That to me has a meaning. I dont believe the content is purely about whether the photograph works. There was a theme running through most of the series - and that was adolescent sexuality. I dont agree that Hensons reasons for taking the shot are for sake of taking a picture. It seemed to me to be a good get out clause for not wanting to talk about bad photography.

I may be completely wrong, but thats the art debate huh, personal emotion.
I just couldnt see why he was celebrated so much from a technical or artisitc viewpoint.

It wasnt all bad - i loved the opera audience series a lot.

Matt

Well has make you wonder sometimes what they call art, and even more what some people pay for it amazes me.
I went to gallery the other week to see Voyages of Vietnam a collection of pictures taken by Naval sailors and so on while on duty so these were not pro's but getting first hand look at what they see. Was ok and interesting but some i see around the place really makes me wonder and well there is hope for us all yet compared to some i have looked at. LOL