Maybe this is something to do with the fact that he was so good at so many different areas of photography - almost as if he never settled to one particular one, which would make him easier to define.
Originally Posted by David H. Bebbington
I don't mind the way he escapes definition though - it's the strength of his images you're left with. Also at the V&A exhibition I was so enthralled by his work I also watched a video they had of him interviewed - often don't bother with those - and I was struck by what an incredibly nice person he was - very unassuming, very modest about his achievements...He described himself as a jobbing photographer, no more no less (this also explains his diversity)... Interesting connections with Diane Arbus, who could also annoy her subjects (the well-known ones - like Germaine Greer). Perhaps the down-side of working with celebrities, and something to do with their rather large egos?... I don't get the feeling 'ordinary' people found him objectionable.
I can't help adding that when you see his prints 'inept' is definitely not a word that springs to mind. Also I think his way of working was pretty unique, you can't really describe his style as like it was 'back then', or anywhere.
Originally Posted by Sparky