Response to Phil Borges toning technique

What impressed me with Phil Burges' photography is that he doesn't go into an alien culture and invade other people's privacy. His work can't be described as photojournalistic or documentary, in the strict use of those terms; nor is it pure "art" (whatever that means), but is, up front, portraiture. When I watched the documentary it was obvious that he was there for a purpose...to photograph people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, in a formal portrait style, with a processing twist (selective toning...art?). Although his site includes a snapshot section, he is not loaded down with cameras, bags, and gadgets...not a camera to be seen except when he's "at work." Of course it's formalistic...that's what it's supposed to be. The same can be said about Newman, Karsh, and others who are portrait photographers...except that Burges' studio is in the jungle. It was obvious to me that the people he photographed wanted to be photographed and had full trust with Phil in this process. It was also obvious that he was not photographing "poor depressed" people who should be living in great affluent America, and who we should feel sorry for, but, instead, he was photographing people who are proud to be what they are. These people took pride in the paint and dress they wore...they were in their "Sunday best" and proud of it and took delight in the polaroids he gave them. Of course his style is formalistic and simplistic (in the positive sense of those terms), and is intended to be that way...that's his style! Style is ok! Whether we like his work, or don't like it, is our own personal business. He makes no apologies for what he does or the way he does it, and I doubt if he cries on the way to the bank. I like what he's doing and hope to see more.

[ Previous | Next ]