Keith Arnatt – Walking the dog
At a first glance I can’t say I like so much the style – it seems to me somehow distant, rather unemotional. This is because I am accustomed for the people to smile or pose when they are photographed. But the people are rather usual, they are dressed for walking , they are photographed against a wall(usually) but also in front of a house, probably theirs. However they are all outside doing the same activity – walking their own dog. They might not be in a great mood, they are not forced to smile, they look so natural, even they all are conscious about the camera.
Karen Knorr – Belgravia
“The photographs are not about individuals but about a group of people and their ideas during a particular time in history.|They are “non-portraits” in that they do not aim to flatter or to show the “truth” of these people. People are not named and remain anonymous.”
The photographs are black and white they have a unity in composition: the carpet and a full wall can be seen and objects around people are present which suggest the investment people did in such lifeless things. Actually their identity becomes tied of these little things, their ideas subordinate their wealthy state.
In opposite with portraits did by Keith Arnatt, the photographs are non portraits they don’t explore people loving someone or something but people loving money and having rigorous ideas about life. Everything happen indoors, “in house of gentlemen”. I think this contrasts with outdoor scenes from “walking the dog”. And perhaps the people from first one are poor but loving, taking care of animals showing somehow their sensibility of living creature. Also the outdoor/indoor contrast is perhaps metaphoric. Those locked indoors with their rigorous ideas are somehow disconnected from nature, and their world is turned on objects around them or on their own person meanwhile those from outdoors are happily – they are connect through the “dog wire” with living creatures of nature.