The amazing photography of Todd Baxter


#1

[Permalink]


#2

It was interesting photography until you get to the part of the child that seems to have been torn in half with his/her guts hanging out. I’ll skip.


#3

A good question, perhaps, is where does one draw the line between “photographer” and the digital equivalent of “painter”? Because I have a hard time calling something like [this][1] or [this][2] photographs, even if they were used as the base, as to me it implies simultaneously more and less than the resultant image.

[1]: http://www.juxtapoz.com/media/k2/galleries/53167/juxtapoz-baxter11.jpg
  [2]: http://www.juxtapoz.com/media/k2/galleries/53167/juxtapoz-baxter9.jpg


#5

Not sure if it was the flash or what, but my computer rebooted itself in mid-browse.

@cah, maybe you can tell by the pixels, but I can’t. It’s possible to get some pretty stunning effects with things like wires and lighting and so on. At least, back in the 20th century.


#6

Yeah, I was already thinking there was something weirdly fetish-y about the Owl Scouts series even before I got to the dead kid with all his formerly-internal organs lovingly rendered and arranged. Not really in the market for prepubescent gore-nography, thanks.


#7

So the Owl Scouts series really seemed to be telling a story, like if you only had the illustrations of a children’s book to go off, not the words, but it still makes narrative sense.
But it got a bit disjoint at the end and I can’t make out the story. Um… what happened? How? Why?

(I also wonder if Penny Arcade’s “The Lookouts” and “The Tithe” were part of the inspiration?)


#8


#9

No. Cloying and melodramatic. The esotericism won’t carry it.


#10

I love how he captured the animal spirit of @joeljohnson here.


#11

Beautifully inventive and atmospheric.

They strongly remind me of the art of Kit Williams, of Masquerade fame, particularly the Bee Book.


#12

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.