…
A 2006 tilt-shift photograph of Teterboro Airport, New Jersey, by Vincent Laforet.
…
Has the backlash against tilt-shift photography begun? Are we oversaturated with print ads that make the world look all small and cute and toylike? Or do people just like to complain about stuff they didn’t think of first? A recent post on the subject at the Adweek blog “AdFreak” doesn’t take a position one way or the other, at least not in the actual text of the post. But the headline is a bit more pointed: “No one’s that impressed by your tilt-shift ad.”
I don’t know, I think a few people are still impressed. Earlier this year, Nadav Kander won an award for his tilt-shift photos for Land Rover. And starting tonight at the Matre Gallery in Atlanta, there will be a solo show of Vincent Laforet’s work that will center on his tilt-shift photos from the past three years. Vincent has been widely praised for his mastery of this technique. (I interviewed him last year for PDN about a project he did for Qualcomm.) He’s posted a selection of images from the exhibition at his blog. Whether or not the ad world has seen enough of tilt-shift photography, it’s interesting that the art world is taking notice. Impressive, even.
..
…
2 Comments
I still enjoy the tilt shift!
I am, however, waiting for the “Matrix” swirl-around pseudo-3D effect to be replaced by something more thoughtful. That movie came out over ten years ago, and each iteration of ads/tv show promos that use it now seem like a spoof, or somehow derivative. It is a striking effect,though.
First of all, I really enjoy your blog.
For my part, I have always thought that tilt shift was a bit gimmicky and cute. I also don’t think it takes a special genius to master the tilt shift, or aerial photography, for that matter, which is all part of creating abstractions (and the ability to rent expensive helos) and should be a skill practiced by all accomplished photographers.
In much the same way that many people are seduced by the allure of HDR photography and heavily photoshopped images, I think the image appears seductive upon first glance. This makes it a perfect vehicle for advertising, which is not by nature prone to using the more soulful and thoughtful (read contemplative) imagery created. This is not a criticism. It is a necessary modality when selling a good or service.
Also, I think that the art world, which I adore (and disdain on occasion) is no less fallible nor immune then the rest of the planet in choosing what to preface, and an artists inclusion in an exhibition is not reason enough alone to value the work. Curators put their legs on one pants leg at a time, too.