Alessandro Bavari: surreal photography

July 14, 2005 4:26 AM

Surreal photography by Alessandro Bavari. [via] Some images NSFW.
posted by Slithy_Tove (13 comments total)

Must be a FLASH interface, as it won't load in my Flashless version of FireFox. Is noting [flash] on a post deprecated or appreciated these days?
posted by Eideteker at 4:31 AM on July 14, 2005

I know this is just me and a select few others, but I find much more interest in the work of Jerry Uelsmann who composes solely through darkroom and wet process techniques, than the digitally manipulated compositions of Bavari (and even those of Uelsmann's wife, Maggie Taylor, a digital artist).

I realize that it is all just technological manipulation in either case, but the "fakeness" of digital tends to annoy me.
posted by beelzbubba at 4:38 AM on July 14, 2005

Warning: Jerry Uelsmann's site requires Flash (and has an annoying opening sequence; Bavari's is much more subtle).
posted by beelzbubba at 4:40 AM on July 14, 2005

Slithy_Tov and Beelzbubba,

Thanks to the both of you. Amazing stuff.
posted by piratebowling at 6:23 AM on July 14, 2005

*phew* Wow, nice. What piratebowling said.
posted by Shane at 6:28 AM on July 14, 2005

That first bunch reminds me of what Hieronymous Bosch might be doing today if he had a camera and editing software.
posted by soyjoy at 7:21 AM on July 14, 2005

Regarding the first link: would you still technically call that photography? And not illustration?
posted by ColdChef at 7:29 AM on July 14, 2005

ColdChef: I dunno. It's heavily hacked photography. It's illustration based on photography. The two ideas meld together at some point. I tagged the post with 'photomontage', and perhaps that's a better term than either. There does seem to be CG art in many of the images.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 7:41 AM on July 14, 2005

It's not quite as creepy as Charlie White's Understanding Joshua, which was brought up in a post deleted earlier (and now in Meta).
posted by clevershark at 8:06 AM on July 14, 2005

Interesting stuff but from skimming through the galleries his work seems very derivative of Joel Peter Witkin's stuff. Sorry, but for my money if I want creepy stuff that induces nightmares I'll stick with Witkin.
posted by photoslob at 9:08 AM on July 14, 2005

Regarding the first link: would you still technically call that photography? And not illustration?
posted by ColdChef at 7:29 AM PST on July 14 [!]

The field of digitally manipulated imaging is still defining and theorizing its boundaries. At this time, a print may be offered as "digital photography," "digital image," and yes, some still call their work "photography." I think in time a name will evolve.

I think of digitally manipulated images as another set of processes and tools. Just as photography did not "kill" painting or printmaking, digital imaging will not "kill" photography, but rather remediate it, much as television remediated radio, or word processing remediated typewriting.

"Photomontage" might again be too vague to indicate the digital nature of the composing process. Photomontage is at least 100 years old--I would have to consult with Mrs. Beelz, the photographer and art historian for confirmation--and thus the term would include digital manipulation as a subset, but not as a primary definition. At this point, I think digital imaging is as comprehensive term as is available.
posted by beelzbubba at 9:17 AM on July 14, 2005

photoslob: In case you missed it, here's the MeFi post about Witkin.
posted by hopeless romantique at 12:16 PM on July 14, 2005

I think Anthony Goicolea has a very interesting modern spin on the whole surreal digital manipulation thing.
posted by larva at 12:39 PM on July 14, 2005