|
Forums >
General Industry >
Who does this guy think he is??!!!
He doesn't have a web prescence, or website. He uses a point and shoot camera to mostly take pictures of himself. Then he sits in his apartment and plays with Photoshop all day.  He's Matt Mahurin. CBS Sunday Morning did a segment on "photo Illustartion", and he was the featured artist. He has book covers, books, the cover of Spin and GQ, and more Time covers than you can count!!! ...including the (in)famous O J "dark" cover. He's living proof that breaking all the rules can be a good thing. "The problem with following the herd is stepping in what they leave behind." - Hartley Peavey http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/sunday/main3445.shtml Oct 29 06 04:26 pm Link I just googled him... He's done it all hasn't he! Here's an interview of him talking about his start and and where it took him - http://www.tlchicken.com/view_story.php?ARTid=3345 Oct 29 06 04:35 pm Link Actually... about 40 TIME covers, according to the article. Thats pretty cool. Keep in mind though, nobody is calling him a photographer, he's a "Photographic Illustrator" because most of his work is photoshop. Do you think its less, because its photoshop? Oct 29 06 04:43 pm Link Do *I* think it's less because of Photoshop? hahahaha. Hardly!!! Just pointing out that in all endeavors, there are set formulas that most people are encouraged to follow. And then there are the innovators that do things their own way. Oct 29 06 05:47 pm Link ClassicHorror wrote: The way I see it is that if you never break any rules you won't get ahead. And it's the breaking of rules that has gotten most big name photographers or most big name anything to where they are now. Oct 31 06 02:36 pm Link When I was at ArtCentre he was a couple of years ahead of me. I never met him, he was in Illustration, I was in photo. Even before he graduated he was considered a star. my understanding is that he knows very little about photography, and does not care to. To him a camera is simply a tool, like a brush or sponge. Sure makes it work for him, doesn't he? Oct 31 06 02:42 pm Link I have heard of him before. I did not see the CBS article before, the thing that struck me was not the guy you are talking about but all of the moronic comments on the article itself. How funny. People think that "photoshop" and image manipulation in advertising should be outlawed. Maybe we should outlaw using certain points of view, and makeup, and hair stylists, and certain lighting techniques, and so on. What an enlightened point of view. When will these idiots figure out advertising is all about presenting the product (beauty or otherwise) in the best possible way and/or associating the product with other desireable things (even fantasies). Editorial images are a completely different story and debate which was the topic of the article. Why do these fools instantly jump to fashion advertising and the friggin "Dove clip" RB Oct 31 06 04:04 pm Link RBDesign wrote: Good idea. Oct 31 06 04:06 pm Link I bet he doesn't do TFP!!!!! jh Oct 31 06 04:07 pm Link Matt Mahurin has been one of the photographers I have enjoyed looking at for many years now. While he may currently be using a point and shoot, he has used professional equipment when it suited him. He is very knowledgable in photographic printing and several medias for illustration. I have known people who have both assisted him and hired him for work. I believe he has also taught illustration. Bringing his work to light is another brilliant example of the creative and excellent work in the industry going on outside the narrow confines of photography/modeling web sites. Oct 31 06 05:04 pm Link "If you live in the box, you will always be a cramp individual" that is my quote for today. You can use it if you want.  Oct 31 06 05:11 pm Link about 4 years ago i was at the vatican seeing the crowd, pope john paul 2 came out on the balcony with matt, guy next to me says 'who's that with matt mahurin' Oct 31 06 05:15 pm Link ClassicHorror wrote: so he's a racist who manipulates images and calls them news.. Oct 31 06 05:29 pm Link Daniel Norton wrote: Even though it wasn't very impressive to you (or me), just how does that make him a racist!!? Nov 01 06 02:11 pm Link ClassicHorror wrote: No sh t. Wow. Nov 01 06 02:12 pm Link MMDesign wrote: That was quicker than I thought.... We have someone spouting racism on the first page.... Nov 01 06 02:17 pm Link MMDesign wrote: go to this page and scroll to the bottom, see how he darkened the mug shot of OJ to make him look more "evil" Nov 01 06 03:15 pm Link Daniel Norton wrote: Ok, I still don't see how it's racist? Nov 01 06 03:41 pm Link Lamonica wrote: yes I am. You are racist against your own race Nov 01 06 04:01 pm Link I'm sorry, but anyone who can brutally stab a man and slit his wife's throat does an awesome job of making people fear him already. Nov 01 06 04:03 pm Link ClassicHorror wrote: problem with that is most people think you're a freak show and won't work with you until you start getting results. Nov 01 06 04:05 pm Link Lamonica wrote: You need to watch the naked gun again Nov 01 06 04:11 pm Link Daniel Norton wrote: Eh, I don't care how funny he is. I can't stand him. As many people who are serving life sentences for crimes they didn't commit, this asshole gets off because he was a football player....Psssh... And, now he's writing a book about how he would've done it "if" he did it.... RIGHT Nov 01 06 04:14 pm Link Daniel Norton wrote: Give me a frickin break! Light is comforting and dark is scarey because of biology and it has nothing to do with race. When in complete darkness you primary sense for navigation and threat detection/evasion (vision) is completely useless. Light and illumination is always associated with knowledge, salvation, and intelligence because the ability to make artificial light was a monumental leap forward for human kind. This is a pancultural truth. If you darkened Gdubya to make him look evil it works because people don't like darkness not because he'd look more afro-american. The same thing holds for OJ. The artist was making him seem shadowy not "blacker". Nov 01 06 04:54 pm Link Please refer me to some examples of white people being made dark besides George Hamilton, which I will agree is very scary. Nov 01 06 05:06 pm Link Daniel Norton wrote: GIS "evil rumsfeld" Nov 01 06 05:13 pm Link yikes! ok that is scary  Seriously though, was that really darkened? I'd like to see the original if so, this is something that I'm very interested in. The same way blush is used on the cheeks to hit an unconscious nerve about sex (you get flushed cheeks when you are aroused) this darkening thing fascinates me. BTW Dahmer's shot is not darkened nearly the amount of OJ's if at all. it's shot under very contrasty light- OJ's shot is a clean mug shot. Nov 01 06 05:17 pm Link lotusphoto wrote: Totally hilarious. Nov 01 06 05:22 pm Link Daniel Norton wrote: You don't just jump to conclusions, you practically mug them. Nov 01 06 05:48 pm Link Annique Delphine wrote: Agreed. Nov 01 06 05:50 pm Link Rossi Photography wrote: Damn, they need to use paragraphs! Nov 01 06 05:51 pm Link Daniel Norton wrote: So you are ready to put a lable on him based on one image he has created on assignment out of a whole career of work? I hope you are ready to stand up to that same narrow view when people look closely at your work. Nov 01 06 06:38 pm Link Dan Howell wrote: Funny, I was just thinking that on the train ride home. I came back to this thread to say I think part of the psychology of that specific image has racist undertones... but, that does not make him a racist. Nov 01 06 08:04 pm Link |
