The New York Times interview with photographer David Armstrong raises interesting questions about the intersections of art, fashion, and documentary. These realms occasionally collide in Armstrong’s work. What questions does the interview raise? What does Armstrong think of the history of photography?
Read the NYT interview with David Armstrong here
Click here to see an exhibition of David Armstrong’s and Nan Goldin’s photography (including a photo of the young Armstrong from 1976)
The cover of Wonderland Magazine was taken by David Armstrong.
See instructions on how to “post” and “comment” under “Blogging Guidelines” above
Please post your responses by Thursday, September 8.
this article was interesting but i really couldn’t figure it out. this is a introduction of anything fashion or photography and i really couldn’t figure out a lot of questions. if i would ever meet him and question him, i would ask him why is your art the photography of young men? another question is what pushed you to continue to work with nan? in the topic of history, why was it felt that you did black-and-white portraits int the 70s? finally, off the topic, why did you feel that after 17 years, you had to start using drugs and alcohol again in 2001?
The overall message of the article seems to me unclear. What I got from the article, is that David Armstrong believes one should study history of photography before doing photography. What he refuses to do is to show fake, emotionless people. Through his images he shows “despair” and whatever else he finds in person’s eye. I believe his need to capture youth of the young men is understandable. Even though he takes photos for big name clients he still does it from the “backstage” view. He wants to capture the “raw” from his models. What specifically is the author of the article asking of Armstrong is hard to determine. I think it is about how personal life and addictions influenced the photographer on the long run.
I am not sure if this is what we were supposed to do here but this is it.
To me, it seems like he concentrates on young men more because he doesn’t want to age, and he wants to remain young. At one point he mentioned “It has to do with issues of my own, this thing about male youth, this idea that something is fading.” He also mentions how his life is unmanageable, and maybe he feels desperate. Ryan McGinley mentions “His photographs are about desire and despair” which might be something that he feels, and is trying to express it through his work. That is why these are the qualities he looks for in the boy’s eyes. I believe that Fashion+Photography=Art in this case because he’s using it in a way to express his feelings.
This article is interesting. I think it more so talks about his past and how he got into photography than fashion and photography. He addresses some things that have nothing to do with photography or fashion. Mr. Armstrong seems as if he only focuses his photography on young people and young men in particular, based on his curiosity and his personal issues. I don’t understand why he continues to be a photographer of fashion if he really doesn’t like it and considers the photos to be fake and emotionless.
After reading this article I was still a bit confused about it. What I understood was that David Armstrong has a “specific style in photography” which is to take photographs of young men and focusing on their eyes. He wants to capture male youth because he believes it’s something that’s fading. He also mentions that he likes to take photographs of the youth because he wants to capture a sense of what they’re thinking. But the real reason why I think David’s Armstrong takes pictures is to compare his own youth with the current youth he sees now. He does not focus on the model, he focuses on the real person.
Armstrong was originally a portrait photographer. His skills are meant to accentuate the subject’s facial expression and not their outfit. By introducing him to fashion photography, he is able to capture a subject in a artistic way that combines the best of both fashion and portrait photography. If his work is a form of expression, appealing, or aesthetic then by definition, yes, it is art. I believe Armstrong thinks the history of photography is essential to photographers as the basic techniques that were used then are the same ones that are still used today.
I understand from this article that David Armstrong was a man with a really difficult life experience. He had a lot of difficulties in his life such as drugs and alcohol addiction, misunderstands. He said that he felt older then he was. Being a real artist he could reflect his experience in his photographs making them not just fashion photographs but the real art. using different techniques he explores “desire” and “despair”. Black and white colors, non artificial faces and sad eyes of models brings us back to the past, to the history of the photographs.
This is quite an overall interesting article although at times it seems quite elusive as to what the real main purpose of it is since it jumps from topic to topic without really connecting to fashion or photography. But I do like how he wraps up nicely in the end to describe the type of photographs he takes because of certain personal experiences and how his work and life was intertwined with Nan Goldin. In the other hand I feel that his photography shows a degree of stillness and detachment. It’s as if he wants to capture a moment in time and at the same time he wants to grasp on the essence of youth by focusing on photography of just young men. Nonetheless, I think it helps him out to combine his personal life experiences to intertwine with both fashion and portrait photography. If combining inspiration, experience, and emotion together is not art then I don’t know what art is !
NYT’s interview with David Armstrong indeed raises a few questions concerning his style, reason and subject of his photography. Although he speaks of his obsession with younger men as his subjects, there seems to be an underlying factor behind this choice. He showed to have a low self-image when he said, “I’m 57, but I feel like I’m 80” while wearing an “outfit, appropriate for a hipster 40 years his junior” which according to the interviewer suited him well “although [Armstrong] might not think so.” His photos are artistic because he chooses to portray a message from the men’s eyes as desire and dispare while keeping them in fashion. His photos must have emotion and reason in order for them to be considered an art form.
Armstrong feels that photography is something one must learn which is something he sais isn’t too hard to do because photography has only been around for the past 150 years. He feels that people that never studied the history of photography should not be taking photos as an art form.
The article celebrates David’s praise for self-expression and pride. This praise is illustrated by his photography. As the article describes his “chic” sense of interior design, you understand his feel for expressionism. His “posed photographs of young men” are not only for the purpose of showing us romance and fashion but to acknowledge the people who share the same view of the world as he. He appriciates “being around youth and getting a take on what they’re thinking.” It’s David seeing himself in all of his subjects.
You all raise many good points and the overwhelming theme is how David Armstrong’s photographs, despite the commercialism of the fashion photos, are expressive of the photographer’s personal identity. For future posts, following the guidelines listed here: http://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/arth11006400f11/blogging-guidelines/ and author a post using the ‘backend’ of the class website, then you can comment on each others blog posts rather than to me! I’d like to hear what you think of each other’s ideas.
David Armstrong seems to have a very dark life. Definitely has a great eye and is attracted to subjects, young boys, looking to achieve images that yell desire and despair. The interview is a bit all over the place in terms of fashion photography although he does say at the end that, “I do the editorials and don’t get the ad campaigns. They don’t want any indication of emotion, particularly if it’s negative. They want something a bit more sanitized, and they’re not going to get it from me.” He is definitely real to his beliefs and is strong as to not selling out. Many people will find his work as art others will say he’s a creep with a dark past and you can see that he looks for people that he can connect with. And they usually are young boys, whom he is probably attracted to. As I mentioned before, I think Mr. Armstrong is definitely very knowledgeable about photography and is very talented, it is his psychology that pushes me away from his work.