Ann Marie ~ Portrait of a close friend, circa 1982 - Bronica 645 ETRS / 150mm f3.5 Zenzanon Lens / Plus-X film • click to embiggenColor! ... Simply Wow! ... OMG! ... EXCELLENT! - those are just the tip-o'-the-iceberg of gushing admiration expressed for the pictures of Steve McCurry - see a National Geographic McCurry bio with samples - as noted on the recent TOP entry, Speaking of Great Color Photography. That entry linked to a video, re: Steve McCurry as the recipient of the 2011 Leica Hall of Fame award.
However, early on in the course of the chorus-of-adulation responses, there was a somewhat dissenting opinion put forth:
I think McCurry has a great eye for the beautiful, is a master of color composition and no doubt works his ass off. But given the time and resources that NGS has historically provided, how could you not hit a few hundred homers over the course of 30 years?
... to which Mike Johnston replied:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just don't realize how incredibly obnoxious that comment is.
... to which the commenter replied with a much more detailed missive in which he reiterated and emphasized his opinion (expressed in his original comment), re: "I think McCurry is a great color photographer with a great eye for the beautiful, with beautifully composed and balanced images." He then went to explain in greater detail his original caveat - "... when I look at McCurry's work, and the work of other NGS photographers I see the job in it ..." - a caveat ("the job in it") with which I emphatically agree.
To wit, re: "the job in it", McCurry is most widely known and recognized, although not exclusively, for his work for National Geographic. Is there anyone in photo world or in a significant segment of the world at large who is not familiar with his now-iconic 1985 cover of National Geographic picture, Afghan Girl? That said his work has gained attention in many other publications. As the TOP commenter pointed out, there is no doubt that McCurry "works his ass off" and has been rewarded for doing so.
However, and this is not (in the working professional picture maker world) a bad thing, McCurry has adopted a style of picture making that is "job" oriented. He has most definitely clothed his picture making MO in the Nat Geo way of seeing the world - lavish use of brilliant/saturated color.
Nat Geo has, since it began to print in color - their first all-color issue was in February 1962, always produced a publication which is printed to some of the highest commercial printing production standards on the planet. The magazine's color reproduction is second only to a very few others. And, according to Nat Geo, it was "... the invention of the small, lightweight Leica camera and Kodak's 35mm Kodachrome film" which enabled them to "... publish more color in its editorial pages throughout 1962 than any other major magazine in the country."
It is no coincidence that McCurry's primary film of choice throughout his career to date was Kodachrome. In fact, Kodak honored McCurry's devotion to and successful use of Kodachrome (800,000+ frames over 40 years) by giving him the last roll of Kodachrome ever to be manufactured.
Therein is "the job in it" - Kodachrome (gives us those nice bright colors, gives us the greens of summers, makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah) + Nat Geo + Steve McCurry = a marriage/match made in heaven.
Now, let me reiterate and emphasize, in the commercial/professional scheme of things, this kind of marriage/match is, indeed, a good thing. Careers, fortunes, and fame are very often based upon such a relationship. Kudo's to McCurry for his success in that arena.
All of that said, my issue with (most) of McCurry's work is, in addition to its uniformly bright-color color-saturated Kodachrome look, is that, to my eye and sensibilities, his work is also uniformly shallow - too obvious, too easy to read, and the reading thereof tends to be heavily biased to the visual, the things that sit on the surface of the picture/print. All qualities which are much in demand and, in fact, demanded/required in the commercial / professional picture world. Short consumer attention spans demand pictures that get to their point in the quickest, most unambiguous, easily accessed manner possible.
IMO, McCurry makes pictures which could be made - not copies but pictures with similar visual effect and qualities - by quite a few other professional picture makers who might have been given the opportunities McCurry has enjoyed. That is not to denigrate McCurry's work or accomplishments but, rather, to put it in perspective. A perspective recently offered up on TOP, re: Ernst Hass (from the book, Ernst Haas: Colour Correction:
Ernst Haas is unquestionably one of the best-known, most prolific and most published photographers of the twentieth century. He is most associated with a vibrant colour photography which, for decades, was much in demand by the illustrated press. This colour work, published in the most influential magazines in Europe and America, also fed a constant stream of books, and these too enjoyed great popularity. But although his colour work earned him fame around the world, in recent decades it has often been derided by critics and curators as 'overly commercial,' and too easily accessible—or in the language of curators, not sufficiently 'serious.' As a result, his reputation has suffered in comparison with a younger generation of colour photographers, notably Eggleston, Shore and Meyerowitz.
Paradoxically, however, there was also a side of his work that was almost entirely hidden from view. Parallel to his commissioned work Haas constantly made images for his own interest, and these pictures show an entirely different aspect of Haas’s sensibility: they are far more edgy, loose, complex and ambiguous—in short, far more radical than the work which earned him fame. Haas never printed these pictures in his lifetime, nor did he exhibit them, probably believing that they would not be understood or appreciated. Nonetheless, these works are of great complexity, and rival (and sometimes surpass) anything done at the time by his fellow photographers. ...
One could easily and, IMO, appropriately substitute the name "Steve McCurry" for that of "Ernst Haas" in the first paragraph of the preceding quote.
Whether or not the substitution could be appropriately made in second paragraph, is open to question. IMO, very open to question inasmuch as I have seen little of McCurry's work that is "... of great complexity ... far more edgy, loose, complex and ambiguous—in short, far more radical than the work which earned him fame."
Featured Comment: Colin Griffiths wrote: "On another point, that 1050mm lens you used for the potrait of Ann Marie must have been HUGE!"
my response: a 1050mm lens would have been huge and probably forced me to make the picture through a window from outside my studio. Fortunately, it was actually a non-typo 150mm lens.
Monday, September 19, 2011 at 05:40PM 
# 5 ~ Grand View GC - Braddock, PA • click to embiggen
