This young photographer is universally unknown. Some of his works resemble the widespread 'hipstamatic' app that warps images used only really on social media sites. Blurred or darkened vignette edges and grainy definition are key indicators of these photoshopped qualities. I understand that it often adds aesthetic appeal to each image by digital alteration, but does it add credibility to the artist as well? Or are these not photographic qualities attainable by anyone? Does photoshop help or hinder a photographers work? I would say that obvious alterations of originals shows the artist's incapability of capturing that particular moment without help. Although, I do appreciate the democracy of programs that can allow 'Anyone to be a photographer'. It only makes it difficult then in the deciding of who is a fine art contemporary photographer and who is not. Or does that matter? Who decides if all photographers end up altering their originals to look the same anyways?
Some of Cole Rise's other photographs resemble either Ansel Adams' mystical landscapes that classically recede into time and space (often a lone tree or fading road in the black and white distance), or Ryan McGinley's air-bourne subject tendencies (which I love for its originality, but not those hundreds of photographers who have since copied the fall).
However, Rise's photographs that do not hold any of these classic pop cultural propensities, are very appealing. Yes, I am quick to judge his work, but I would not have posted anything on Rise's work if I did not see potential in many images (SUBJECTIVE!). As well, I have a bad tendency to compare everything to something. I am trying hard to not compare and judge against what I already know, but it is a difficult habit to get out of.
Like everyone in pop culture these days, I am seriously drawn to astronomy. This is a beautiful photograph for that reason.