Alastair Levy

October 21, 2009 3:53 AM

Alastair Levy is a photographer.
posted by nthdegx (16 comments total)

...and so is Michael Fish?
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 3:56 AM on October 21, 2009 [2 favorites]

Not to piss on such a simple declarative, but this Levy character seems to be more of an artist than a photographer. Those are built pieces and manipulations.

(Also, understand: if he were a photographer, his website would have a black background and indecipherable Flash navigation. It's some sort of professional requirement.)
posted by rokusan at 4:05 AM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]

Alastair Levy is an artist.
posted by nthdegx at 4:10 AM on October 21, 2009

Alastair Levy is jejune.
posted by Faze at 4:15 AM on October 21, 2009 [1 favorite]

Worth1000, if you like that kind of thing. (My interest level is about 63%.)
posted by DU at 4:47 AM on October 21, 2009

"Worth1000, if you like that kind of thing."

Interesting comparison. They're worlds apart to me.
posted by nthdegx at 4:52 AM on October 21, 2009

It's kind of meh. Funny how some of the pieces are labeled with the medium/materials they're made from, and others are labeled as archival inkjet prints. There doesn't seem to be any pattern.
posted by echo target at 6:23 AM on October 21, 2009

Fun stuff. If you like Alastair Levy, you might love Tom Friedman.
posted by Drab_Parts at 6:36 AM on October 21, 2009

Worth1000, if you like that kind of thing.

Perhaps you're thinking of Superheroes in Old War Photographs?
posted by filthy light thief at 7:07 AM on October 21, 2009

This is sort of like Banksy crossed with the Franklin Mint: I ate Thumper's liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.
posted by permafrost at 7:09 AM on October 21, 2009

Oooh, I like these. Thanks!
posted by mygothlaundry at 7:23 AM on October 21, 2009

FWIW, I clicked thinking hmmm.... inauspicious post description, but was pleasantly surprised. Some nice ideas and lovely simple execution.

Shame it's an unusable Flash website which doesn't allow deep linking... I was going to link to the wooden (parquet?) floor piece. Great bit of work: very visually pleasing (to me), unique, interesting.

and he's definitely not just a photographer
posted by Hartham's Hugging Robots at 10:02 AM on October 21, 2009

also

"Worth1000, if you like that kind of thing."

Interesting comparison. They're worlds apart to me.

am with nthdegx: this is nothing like Worth 1000 to me either. That's solely photoshop manipulation (isnt' it? I may be wrong and if so, apologies), whereas these (as rokusan says) are real world works / pieces / installations.

Not to denigrate Worth 1000, there's some talented folks over there. Just... different. Innit.
posted by Hartham's Hugging Robots at 10:41 AM on October 21, 2009

Interesting ideas but the photography is terrible. These kinds of conceptual images are so played out, they are a dime a dozen over at Getty stock - just Google 'conceptual photography' and there are a gazillion cute little shots. The least one could do is take a nice picture. Instead, we get poor lighting, composition, ugh.

According to Wikipedia, "Conceptual art is art in which the concept(s) or idea(s) involved in the work take precedence over traditional aesthetic and material concerns."

To paraphrase, 'art by people who are too lazy to learn the craft of their medium.'
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 12:33 PM on October 21, 2009

The humor is fun but there's no depth here.
posted by bearwife at 2:50 PM on October 21, 2009

infinitefloatingbrains: I completely reject that as an accurate paraphrasing of your quote (or the wikipedia article). It says the concepts or the ideas take precedence over traditional concerns. It doesn't follow at all from that that those people are too lazy to learn a craft - or indeed that they don't have a craft. It's simply a different form of art. (And one which, to me, has - at least occasionally! - great merit, interest, and beauty, even.

People who master any craft are no doubt doing something with real value, I'm not denying that for a moment. I'm just saying that exploring / visualising ideas without doing so through an expert application of any traditional craft <> something to be considered as without value, or somehow inferior / sub standard.

I think this post got off to a fundamentally bad start by defining this guy as a photographer. He probably wouldn't make a great photographer, and hasn't mastered the craft. But he's done some other really neat stuff, which he (or perhaps even someone else?) has taken snaps of, so we can see it on a website. I'm just not getting the point of slagging off the photography here...
posted by Hartham's Hugging Robots at 5:48 AM on October 22, 2009