Photographer : Erik Lee Snyder Erik's sites : Tumblr &photographic site
Why Erik Lee Snyder (again) ? If you saw last week's post you should probably remember I mentioned Erik mostly did portraits. He likes working in B&W and in my opinion this choice is a wise one since using those two colours enables to accentuate some traits of the model adding a dramatic dimension to a picture. What convinced me about it is this portrait of Samuel Beckett by Jane Bown :
The absence of colours or more precisely the constrasts between B&W in Jane's picture enable us to pay attention to the seamed face of Samuel Beckett, to see that each wrinkle present is telling us a story. With colours, our writer would have looked like an old wrinkled man whereas here the choice of using B&W makes us appreciate his aging.That is why I believe I am able to understand photographer such as Erik who prefer shooting in B&W when doing portraits.What I am seeing. A portrait. Definitely. If you thought that only a face could be considered a portrait let me tell you I don't share this opinion. This worn out pair of sneakers must have a owner. Albeit the absence of their wearer we can tell that these Converse have been a part of him/her for a long time. Indeed, if in Jane's picture Samuel Beckett's wrinkles were the incarnation of beautiful aging, in the case of Erik's picture the holes on these Converse can also be viewed, and excuse the oxymoron, as a sign of a beautiful exhaustion.Now I am going to tell the other side of the story. On Erik's Tumblr, under these Converse picture is written : Roman's Chuck Taylor. This is the only indication we have about the owner, his name : Roman. But eventhough we are not seeing this man, I consider these shoes as an extension of his self because they have been worn and damaged by the time. I can't tell you about the personality of Roman, but I bet he must really like his sneakers to have them tired in such a way.
Last point, I asked myself a lot of time while watching this picture, why Erik didn't choose a black background. It would have made the state of the shoes more noticeable, that's what I thought first. But the more I was watching this picture, the more I felt Erik made the best choice. Did he have put a black background, the shot would have appeared too aggressive. By that I mean you would have only seen the shoes for the shoes, whereas this white background drives us to be more mindful of every part of this pair of shoes and in my case wondering about its owner.
What do you see : a pair of shoes or a portrait ? Tell me, I am curious to know about your point of view !
