Whose photographs are they? If they are not his own.....??????? it does not seem like enough to just "borrow" someone's work even if it is an interesting face. If they ARE his that enriches the content .
The circle does not give me ("we") much sense of an environment let alone their thoughts and blacking out their hands seems arbitrary.
I more often find the work you show here to be interesting, dense in imagery , sensitive to design and point of view.
Thanks for all you do to show good work.

Daisy:
Generally, the photographs collage artists use are public domain or from National Geographic or other publications. These collages are no different from the rest.

What appealed to me with these collages was the composition and the concept behind them.

Thank you for your feedback, but I stand by my choices! I enjoy showing a well rounded view of the art form itself and how people are interpreting it.

Personally, I think these are good works. The artist attributes them as a study, and at quick glance once can see the examinations of color and proportion across the compositions.

Daisy, collage is historically a medium re-appropriating found imagery through the use of fair use, for decorative use, propaganda or political response, as well as the pursuit of fine art. Here, Whitcomb creates a small survey examining the expressions within portraiture of other artists, creating a derivative work as a result.

I don't think Whitcomb is trying to change the world here, or commercially profit off the work of others, instead pursuing something more akin to a visual experimentation in the studio as laboratory.

Great find, Aprile!

Thanks for the history lesson. Just for the record , I've been making collages since 1962. I admired the work of Max Ernst, Tuli Kupferberg, Hannach Hoch and others back then, even was aware of Joseph Cornells' ventures into collage, though they were harder to find than his boxes. I did seek to find a personal "voice' different from theirs.
Though public domain laws vary from 75 years to 100 according to country, I realize many people "borrow" from more recent work , especially non editorial magazine reproductions to use in their art. I have no quarrel with this use , especially when it is transformed or revised without being insensitive or disrespectful of the originators intentions.
It does seem minimal effort or thought has gone into work where the removal of an others' original effort would render that piece devoid of literal or visual content .

Daisy, may we see some of your work?