Several of the examples in the article are from the Dusseldorf school of photography (which I am a big fan of in general).<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorf_school_of_photography" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorf_school_of_phot...</a><p>My gateway photo was Cabbage Field by Simone Nieweg<p><a href="https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Simone-Nieweg-Cabbage-Field-1990-Saint-Louis-Art-Museum-Saint-Louis-MO-United-States-768x551.jpg" rel="nofollow">https://www.dailyartmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/...</a>
I am confused. My understanding is, that deadpan photography is a very neutral way of photographing things. 99 cents on the other hand was highly digitally altered by gursky, it is not neutral at all. How is it an example for deadpan photography?
I feel like that term could also be used to describe Wes Anderson's filming style. The static shots and dead-centered framing are as much of a deadpan comedic character as anything happening in the scene.
> Now notice that you are being watched. The image is watching you look at it. It knows what it is doing.<p>That's when I stopped reading