David Laspina
I find the work of David Laspina quite interesting. His photography is diverse and he certainly knows how to make mundane subjects become intriguing. Nice play of color, subjects, textures and light. Most of the photography will be found at the archives section, under projects.
The editing of his portfolio needs some work to highlight the strong images and eliminate the weak ones. With an efficient editing, his work would show significantly better.
Truely a mixed bag. A mixture of quite a few very strong images with some very weak images.
I like the ones posted on this blog though!
I like quite a bit these images as well … that’s why I chose them as examples … thanks for commenting!
Miguel
I think it’s hard to declare that Laspina has “good” or “bad” photographs, specifically when he is clearly playing with the idea of important and trivial imagery. Look at some of his landscapes, portraits and still-lifes, many of them are perfectly executed, while others contain elements that are considered mistakes in a traditional ideal of the photographic. These mistakes are so obvious and even stylistic that one cannot declare, or even suppose to declare them as faults. A mixed bag? Yes. A mixed bag of good and bad photography? No.
I also assume that much of what we consider good photography rests upon this love of photography’s masters, Shore, Sternfeld, Frank, Winogrand, Goldin, etc. There is something particularly wrong with this. You wouldn’t judge contemporary painters against say, Picasso, Monet, or Rembrandt. Photography is one of these mediums where it feels like it takes ten steps back to take one step forward.