The Exhibition is in the National Portrait Gallery from the 5th of November 2009-14 February 2010. The selection on show are 60 works selected from more than 6,300 images-Thats loads! Therefore it seams a disappointment to see some photographs that you may wonder why they are there?
And make you think why did they pick the winners they did? I will not tell you the winners, but share with you some thoughts. As the leaflet states the work is from professionals, students and amateurs and covers a wide range of work. The quality is exceptional you can't depute that, as photography is subjetive they are as many reading of an image as people, but the exhibition seamed to have a agenda with the choice, rather than an organic feel. Not having seen any of the 6,240 images that did not make it into the exhibition, it would wrong of me misunderstand the complexity of choosing what to hang. As a gallery it would be wrong to show 25 pictures of a six year old with a cat, evan if those 25 where the best work anybody has ever seen, and individually every one would make you weep with joy. You would have to pick one (or maybe two).
If you are thinking about entering next year one of these competitions, I have some advice, pick a category that is not popular and take the best photo you can to increase your odds.
At the top was the least interesting portrait of the whole show- Sarah Waters, by Ric Bower
You could forgive the dullness of the image, if it was not for the text describing the image. "the image is a result of an intense artistic process with Walters as a willing collaborator" I can't think of anything more bum kissy.
On the right is Scott by David Graham, I love this photograph, Mainly because of the use of the white door as a back ground and the look that Scott gives to the camera has such a serenity, you can almost feel you are there in that tight space with the inevitability of the end.
One of my other favorites was Huong, 19 in Hanol, From the series A war's Legacy- Birth Defects in Vietnam by Adam Nadel. For me the composition was interesting to me, as Hanol was slightly placed in the frame at the bottom right. As Hanol as no eyes, it was difficult to to know where to look, your eyes moved around the frame and landed neatly square in the face,this was then repeated due to the composition I became aware of my own eyes. This may have not been the intention of the photographer, but if it was subtly placed there it would have been why this photograph was so successful.
Posted via web from roomnoir's posterous
Posts
