Topic: Dennis Hopper photos

[hookstrapped]

You might like/dislike them.

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/dennis-hoppers-drug-store-camera-photos/#

[LT]

thanks for the link. I absolutely like/dislike them

[jharr]

I find myself neither liking nor disliking them. I am ambivalent. I have expressed this on other threads, that famous people get notoriety for doing just about anything mildly creative whether it is of good quality or poor. I have seen photos here on the forum that deserve much higher praise than anything Dennis Hopper produced. Unfortunately, no one is going to buy "Flower Fouls" by James Harr because frankly, who the heck is James Harr?? He's nobody. But a collection of casual snapshots by <enter name of famous singer/actor/politician here> will get published in a heartbeat because people think it will give them insight into that person they admire. It isn't about art. Hopper seems to be a pretty average photographer. Some shots are keepers, others are boring/poorly composed/badly exposed/out of focus.

The preceding was sponsored by the "They Call It 'My Two-Cents-Worth' For a Reason Foundation".

[Francois]

Didn't even know he was dead 

[astrobeck]

I kinda like them...not because he was a celebrity, but because of the ordinariness of them.

They could have been made by anyone, and just remind me of snapshots that i see in boxes at flea markets or in some family albums.
He's just some dude with a camera to me..and not some fancy movie guy.

 

[huevos_rancheros]

I find myself neither liking nor disliking them. I am ambivalent. I have expressed this on other threads, that famous people get notoriety for doing just about anything mildly creative whether it is of good quality or poor. I have seen photos here on the forum that deserve much higher praise than anything Dennis Hopper produced. Unfortunately, no one is going to buy "Flower Fouls" by James Harr because frankly, who the heck is James Harr?? He's nobody. But a collection of casual snapshots by <enter name of famous singer/actor/politician here> will get published in a heartbeat because people think it will give them insight into that person they admire. It isn't about art. Hopper seems to be a pretty average photographer. Some shots are keepers, others are boring/poorly composed/badly exposed/out of focus.

The preceding was sponsored by the "They Call It 'My Two-Cents-Worth' For a Reason Foundation".

Completely agree.


Its strange when a celebrity or someone on the same page as Dennis here would try and present the photos in such a way, "i want to be remembered for my work with a camera", its over the top to me.
maybe he has been misquoted..

& I can enjoy some of his images, not really on this article though.

but its the intention thats weird to me, if there is some strange "i wanna be remembered" notion behind it, its not as enjoyable for me.

[mcduff]

I kind of like to see these things from personalities that I have found interesting. But I will admit it is probably for the wrong reasons - eg pretending they give more insight into their 'main' career. I will admit that is a cheesy reason.

I generally agree with you James but their are some exceptions. I won't bore you with examples (unless you want me to ) but their are some artists who became at least as successful in a second and unrelated discipline. Sure it is possible that they used their fame to springboard their second career.

And sorry, but I will probably not remember him as a photographer - other than a crazy photographer in the middle of a Vietnam jungle ;-)

[Late Developer]

Bit of a mixed bunch of shots. The last two - the shot of the cowboy - leaves me cold but I like the last one - the landscape - a lot.  I'm with James on this one, though.  If any of us had produced that set, ity probably wouldn't have been given a second look.  No disrespect to Dennis Hopper but my guess is that the only reason anyone's really interested is because who shot those photos - not because of any technical, artistic or other particular merit.

[moominsean]

I've always quite like Hopper's "documentary" photography. Not so much his texture and graffiti photos which are pretty boring overall...but I think he had a good eye for shooting people and landscapes. This selection is a bit hit and miss, but I could say that about most photography.