Robert Polidori photographing in India
Explore the works of Canadian photographer Robert Polidori, who uses a large-format camera to capture environments that range from the French palace of Versailles to the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina or the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. Photographs from Polidori’s Versailles series are NOW on view (through October 26th) at the Mary Boone Gallery in Chelsea (541 West 24th Street). Polidori has been criticized for the absence of people in his photographs. Do you think his photographs aestheticize the settings of catastrophe? Or do you think they are powerful statements of unique events?
Read a recent interview with Robert Polidori here
Explore Polidori’s photographs at Edwynn Houk Gallery’s website
Polidori’s exhibit of the Versailles series at Mary Boone Gallery
The DUE DATE to submit your blog posts for this topic is Sunday, October 27th.
I don’t think Polidori should have been criticized for his work because as an artist he had a vision on how he wanted to capture the view of the city and he did it his way. People always have negative comments to say when they don’t agree with something instead of just being appreciative too good art work.
People love to criticize on other if there standards don’t meet there’s. A photographer has the right to point and shoot what they desire too. I love photography that just involves scenery. The lack of people involved in photos does not mean its still not appreciated. Polidori is not shooting portraits, he is trying to capture moments in history. You definitely do not need people to pose for that.
I don’t believe there is anything wrong with the photographs that Robert Polidori took. I find that Polidori choice to not photograph people allow for his photos to create a stronger impact on people’s thoughts. There should also be no reason for anyone to become upset with his photographs depicting disasters. He was not responsible for the catastrophes nor did he pray for them. He simply wanted to capture a historic moment that people find hard to look at. His photos also help people become aware that disaster can strike anywhere, and it is usually the fault of human activities, similarly to Robert Knoth’s gallery “Nuclear Nightmare.”
I don’t feel as though Polidori’s photographs aestheticize the setting of a catastrophe, I feel that his photos are powerful statements of unique events. Some may feel disturbed when looking at the photographs; others may appreciate the historical tragedy that came along with these photographs, the images may be useful resources when researching about such event. When looking at these photographs, one may get a better sense of what occurred, and a visual of the aftermaths. Polidori is photographing realistic images, important events that changed the lives of many people. I was highly fascinated when going though the pictures of the victims of Chernobyl. I wanted to learn and research more about the tragedy.
I think photograph itself have the power to aesthetic what is real and on the same time captures the photographer’s emotion toward what had been captured. To aesthetic the setting of catastrophe (that is the photographer’s feeling toward catastrophe), I think that is not a problem just like what Polidori said he didn’t create the catastrophe. Catastrophe is sad but also make people work together to overcome problems because most people only minds their own business and doesn’t care about others.
I think his photographs are powerful statements of unique events. If there were people in the photographs they would distract from the actual photo and what he was actually trying to show in the photo. As disturbing as people might find the photos they also help teach mankind a lesson about the events of destruction they cause directly and indirectly.
Robert Polidrio although does not include humans in his photos seems to me to be versatile in his approach. I feel as if his photos speak for the area or location in which he took the picture. I do not agree that he photographs only catastrophes. His photos of New York’s sixth avenue and metropolis are examples of expressing the locations environment. I think it’s difficult to give off emotions just from buildings so I disagree with him being criticized for not including humans
I don’t feel like he should’ve been criticized for his photographs. First of all I think as an artist, you should have the freedom to do and present what ever you want, as long as it is not disrespectful. You can’t criticize his photos because there is a strong meaning behind it. You have to really analyze it to understand. You can not just judge a book by its cover. I honestly think his photographs are powerful statements of unique events.