Self-taught photographer Matt Crabtree secretly shoots photos of unsuspecting Londoners and gives them a 16th-century portrait feel. Featured below are some of the best samples from his amazing project.
Self-taught photographer Matt Crabtree secretly shoots photos of unsuspecting Londoners and gives them a 16th-century portrait feel. Featured below are some of the best samples from his amazing project.
Incredible
Why are they all white?
They are most likely all white to match the context of the iconography of the 16th-century religious works of art that are the theme of his work, a period when Saints and important religious figures were portrayed as white because the artists were white Europeans and their audiences, the vast majority of Europeans, were white. Besides, it’s his artistic choice to photograph anybody he wants. Why should anybody question, or attempt to impose their ideological views on him to restrict his freedom to express his vision. If a black artist wants to paint only members of their local black community in New York are you going to complain and insist that they should also paint Hasidic Jews from New York or members of the Russian community in Little Odessa in New York just to keep a balance? No. It’s a ridiculous, politically motivated, anti-art, anti-personal freedom idea.
Wow, looks like someone likes to get their rocks off taking what is probably video of people, to get the right pose, without their knowledge. Creep factor 9!
Bimbly bombly wooble
Well, girl #1 isnt white….
Not impressed and not moved. Quite boring, actually.
Beautiful photos!
Rather ham-fisted photoshop work here. I love the concept but the execution is a pretty kludgy.
Is that even legal? To use someone’s image without their consent? Or even knowledge?
In Australia, the UK, and the USA, you can basically take a photo of just about anything or anyone in a public place or from a public place into a private property without permission as long as it isn’t illegal eg upskirts would be an obvious example, or military/security things. Naturally, you cannot take photos on private property without the owner’s permission.
The issue of the photographer using the photos for commercial purposes is a slightly more complicated issue and may require a model release. In Australia for example, an artist’s work is considered non-commercial as long as it’s not used to sell a product eg a photographer’s print for sale in a gallery is non commercial but putting the photo on the cover of a magazine makes it for commercial use. Obviously this is only the briefest overview.
I too feel very uncomfortable with the use of personal photos of people without their permission taken without knowledge. this is unethical. Also very creepy. How horrendous.
I like it! Very Caravaggio