16yr Old photographer Gets Gig for Burberry Fragrance Campaign

[Nelsonretreat]

Brooklyn Beckham, the son of famous duo Victoria Beckham and her footballer husband David Beckham, has been given the job of photographing the next Burberry fragrance campaign. So far he's just uploaded pics to Instgram so this is quite a step up!

If you're interested in why I think this is a good move by Burberry you can read my blog on the topic.  Otherwise just Google it and see the outrage!

http://www.newzealandlandscape.com/archives/1788

[Rob C]

Brooklyn Beckham, the son of famous duo Victoria Beckham and her footballer husband David Beckham, has been given the job of photographing the next Burberry fragrance campaign. So far he's just uploaded pics to Instgram so this is quite a step up!

If you're interested in why I think this is a good move by Burberry you can read my blog on the topic.  Otherwise just Google it and see the outrage!

http://www.newzealandlandscape.com/archives/1788

How bloody cruel and insensitive to attempt to score points by using Angelina.

Anyway, the writer hasn't a friggin' clue about the ethos. I was also a sixteen-year-old once, and though I'd dreams of doing the then contemporay versions of Angelina shots, l was far too young to understand what it's really all about, as, apparently, the writer similarly fails to grasp and I doubt he's sixteen. What a strange obsession (and problem) he has with 'open legs'... Ah, of course: he likes the ones with legs bolted together at the knees. Maybe he's a mechanic.

Rob

[GrahamBy]

Legs apart? Good god, what's between them! It might make one think of S**.

What's perfume for again?

[Rob C]

That a 16 year old gets to shoot for Burberry is just the depressing way s things are these days.
 
Off course, we were on that path since the demand for perfection became the norm on high fashion. Why retouch so much if we can get younger models? You can't f*** them but you sure can look at them on sexy lingerie, so please do.  Then it happens: Ughh that old man is 31, I want a "fresh" face, who truly knows what being beautiful is, someone who knows how to Snapchat. Hey, look at the Beckham kid's Instagram, he must be good because his parents have money, plus he wears Burberry so he's a fan.   

However, I don't see anything wrong with Annie's photo. Yes, there's some leg opening and some side boob happening, so what? Do you need her to wear a 1950's dress and have her drinking tea with her friends at a Ted Cruz support get-together? With 15 strobes around the set to prove that you know your lighting? It's not about that.

Does the Beckham kid will do the photoshoot with his iphone? I can't picture him handling a Phase One.

Technically, it's perfectly fine; the problem is in its use if you realise what happened to the subject. That's all I was saying.

Rob C

[Nelsonretreat]

What a strange obsession (and problem) he has with 'open legs'... Ah, of course: he likes the ones with legs bolted together at the knees. Maybe he's a mechanic.

Rob

I always think it shown great command of critical skiiils when the critic attacks the person rather than analysing their argument.  Even more clever is the use of witty intellectual repartee like 'maybe he's a mechanic'!

I have no problem with 'open legs'. I do have a problem with experienced professional photographers -supposedly at the top of their profession- who create cliched images indistinguishable from those of a 16 yr old rookie. If you're going to go for the semi sleazy soft porn cliche then at least so it in style like Helmut Newton.  Frankly a monkey could probably take a better pic so I have no doubt Beckham junior will do a reasonably good job.

[Rob C]

I always think it shown great command of critical skiiils when the critic attacks the person rather than analysing their argument.  Even more clever is the use of witty intellectual repartee like 'maybe he's a mechanic'!

I have no problem with 'open legs'. I do have a problem with experienced professional photographers -supposedly at the top of their profession- who create cliched images indistinguishable from those of a 16 yr old rookie. If you're going to go for the semi sleazy soft porn cliche then at least so it in style like Helmut Newton.  Frankly a monkey could probably take a better pic so I have no doubt Beckham junior will do a reasonably good job.

How can you equate any of Helmut Newton with the Annie shot? They are totally different styles from utterly different cultures. Neither is there anything 'supposed' about her status within the profession. Check out her credits, which she earned over many years.

Now why would you go further and equate Beckham the Younger with a monkey?

Where is the 16-year-old rookie's picture that's being compared with the Annie one?

Where is Isaac?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Where is Isaac?

Probably attending Coursera's course on photography, in preparation for this lively debate

[Nelsonretreat]

How can you equate any of Helmut Newton with the Annie shot?

That was my entire point! I think there is absolutrely no comparison between an unimaginative and cliched jobbing photographer and someone who is in a totally different league.  If you look at the body of work of both photographers, as I know you have, you have to agree there a marked difference irrespective of any judgment of who is the 'better' photographer. I recognize that my preference for one over the other is subjective but it shouldnt distract from my main argument that an unknown photographer would not have to work too hard to do better that that Angelina shot.  If you ask whether i'd choose Beckham or a monkey over Helmut Newton then I'm voting for Helmut every time!

(I'm glad nobody has, as yet, spotted the fatal flaw in my argument. The Jolie shot would have been manufactured by a location scout, Art Director, Stylist. Make Up Artist, and assorted busy bodies etc. Its overall look would have been decided long before Annie swept in with her retinue of assistants and earned several thousand dollars for draping Angelina over the chaise longue like a soft porn starlet and pressed the shutter button. You can't totally  blame Annie for this particular cliched shot but she does get the photo credit so, de facto, responsibility for the overall look of the image is down to her. I can't help feeling that Helmut might somehow have made Angelina look a lot more interesting and frankly, less cheap and ordinary, that Annie did.) 

[Rob C]

That was my entire point! I think there is absolutrely no comparison between an unimaginative and cliched jobbing photographer and someone who is in a totally different league.  If you look at the body of work of both photographers, as I know you have, you have to agree there a marked difference irrespective of any judgment of who is the 'better' photographer. I recognize that my preference for one over the other is subjective but it shouldnt distract from my main argument that an unknown photographer would not have to work too hard to do better that that Angelina shot.  If you ask whether i'd choose Beckham or a monkey over Helmut Newton then I'm voting for Helmut every time!

(I'm glad nobody has, as yet, spotted the fatal flaw in my argument. The Jolie shot would have been manufactured by a location scout, Art Director, Stylist. Make Up Artist, and assorted busy bodies etc. Its overall look would have been decided long before Annie swept in with her retinue of assistants and earned several thousand dollars for draping Angelina over the chaise longue like a soft porn starlet and pressed the shutter button. You can't totally  blame Annie for this particular cliched shot but she does get the photo credit so, de facto, responsibility for the overall look of the image is down to her. I can't help feeling that Helmut might somehow have made Angelina look a lot more interesting and frankly, less cheap and ordinary, that Annie did.)

Well, you confuse me more than ever.

I was not saying that Newton was better than Leibovitz (there, I can spell it without first looking it up) at all; asking how you could equate them in some way was because of their differences and not intended to imply superiority to either which, of course would also be subjective for me to do; I still don't mark one as better than the other but neither do I knock either, which is somewhat different to your positon...

I respect both of them for their achievements but wouldn't pick either as my ideal - not by a long chalk.

Regarding the 'packaging' of Jolie, well that seems to be the current reaity of the business. I think it a terrible step backwards for them - the stars - because though they may be presented as glossy-perfect, nobody actually buys that anymore, the Photoshopped dream/lie being so transparent. Back in the days of the Hollywood Star System, at least groups like Magnum and Globe Photos got access and photographed those people as people, and because of that, they were real to the public. It's worth a look at the Magnum site to check out some of the work done on The Misfits lot with Marilyn: she is seen to be glamorus, fragile, vulnerable at the same time; you can get an inkling of the situation re. her life with Arthur Miller and so on. Avedon had some classics as did Bert Stern, the latter spending an extended time alone with her. Imagine that today. Of course the studio boys retouched the hell out of the shots they took, but the agency guys were not the Hollywood contract lads.

But, today, the PR middlemen (and gals) seem to rule everything.

Rob C

[Nelsonretreat]

 It's worth a look at the Magnum site to check out some of the work done on The Misfits lot with Marilyn: she is seen to be glamorus, fragile, vulnerable at the same time; you can get an inkling of the situation re. her life with Arthur Miller and so on. Avedon had some classics as did Bert Stern, the latter spending an extended time alone with her. Imagine that today.
Rob C

Ahh I have to TOTALLY agree with you re the Misfits shots. Such wondwerful delicate and masterful photography. We can agree on this!

[Jim Pascoe]

I fully agree with the Op's blog posting.  Subjectively I think both pictures are awful really - considering the subjects.  It may well be down to people other than the photographer, but they're not pictures that I would get any real satisfaction from producing (except perhaps for the money).  I suppose just not a genre of photography I like anyway - at least not in that style.

Jim

[Rob C]

Ahh I have to TOTALLY agree with you re the Misfits shots. Such wondwerful delicate and masterful photography. We can agree on this!

You see? Silver linings!

Rob C

[Rob C]

"I could go on but I won’t. The point is that both these photographs represent a tired and worn cliché of female representation. But it’s not that they objectify women in the most crass way possible. It’s that their execution is actually not that great. Both photographs demonstrate a voyeuristic and salacious approach and one has to wonder what exactly the brief from the art director was. The results can certainly lay no claim to originality."

Perhaps time to catch up on at least part of the OP.

The man is entitled to his opinion, but reading the above quotation makes me think he's not very familiar with the genre beyond the level of jus' lookin' which is not a place from which to pontificate.

Fashion (in magazines, at any rate) has a language. You speak or you do not. It was ever so, decades before and even during my own start within it in the 60s, and while the prose changes somewhat, the grammar remains.

Testino is hardly one I would hold up as a great fashion photographer; he does a great deal of it, but in my view, he's a personality/celebrity shooter which is something else, quite apart from his being a celebrity himself. In the same way, I see Annie as being a sister of his, which isn't a surprise when you consider where and how she cut her teeth.

But in both cases, I think they speak their own language very well and clearly; they are masters of the big production.

As for the two images being clichés, finding anything today that's not one is a miracle; the best you can hope for is a fresh face or a better technique, the pursuit of the latter leading to the PS atrocities found everywhere...

Helmut Newton and fashion today? I agree. As far as I remember, his fashion partnership with Karl ended when the latter began to tell Helmut what he wanted rather than let him be, and get on with it. Newton was in the 'million bucks a year club', and his response seems to have been to suggest Karl do it himself, which he did. To me, it's quite understandable: two artists working together are bound to shipwreck in the end, which is why so few 'artistic' partnerships, not based on love/sex survive very long.

Rob

[Jim Pascoe]

Hi Rob

I meant what I said about agreeing with the OP.  Bur I also agree with you (I'm a very agreeable person).  I just don't like that style of photography.  I do like seductive/erotic photography.  I don't mind some porn.  But those pictures to me are in no-man's land and look so contrived. Yes I know pretty much ALL porn is contrived. Or am I being blind - are those pictures just porn dressed up in clothes - in which case they make more sense.  But then taste is a very personal thing.  What a waste to photograph such beautiful women in that way - but I suppose commercial realities being what they are........

Jim

[Rob C]

Hi Rob

I meant what I said about agreeing with the OP.  Bur I also agree with you (I'm a very agreeable person).  I just don't like that style of photography.  I do like seductive/erotic photography.  I don't mind some porn.  But those pictures to me are in no-man's land and look so contrived. Yes I know pretty much ALL porn is contrived. Or am I being blind - are those pictures just porn dressed up in clothes - in which case they make more sense.  But then taste is a very personal thing.  What a waste to photograph such beautiful women in that way - but I suppose commercial realities being what they are........

Jim

H Jm,

I feel differently regarding porn: I think that it is a pain, that it has clouded the waters for all of us who shoot models in one way or another. It's raised spectres of corruption, hidden but incipient violence and ulterior motives of every questionable kind. In fact, outwith the confines of a regular model agency, I have found it pretty much impossible to find anyone willing to model for me because of fear - and I can't even run, never mind as fast as any young woman! In fact, it seems that the fear isn't even always something that comes only from the person asked: often it's a reflection of parental or partner fear and distrust of what might happen to the would-be model. Almost everybody outwith the business distrusts us. I wish that I could say that they were always mistaken...

Come to think of it, I can't really say that I'm a fan of most 'glamour' photography, as distinct from porn; I tend to think of it as so improbable... several music videos show women in high heels reclining on the hoods of old Cadillacs, pouting and looking, frankly, quite ridiculous. And that apart from the fact that did I own such a classic car, no wench would ever get on top of it and even more certainly, not wearing dangerous shoes that could damage the paintwork!

I can remember a day in my own studio at the beginning of my career, when a girl had been sent along by a model agency to do some tests. She came with a girlfriend, and when the shoot was over, they wanted a lift to another part of town. I had neither time nor inclination and offered to call a cab for them. The 'model' then opened up her blouse and walked towards me with one of those 'smouldering' looks on her face, hoping that I'd be tempted by the flesh and give in... hell's teeth, it was all I could do not to laugh in her stupid face. I rang the taxi. I often think of that little incident when I see 'come hither' expressions in photographs. It also reminds me that women can take as much advantage of men as the other way around, which is what some strident feminists claim is the way of all men.

For myself, I see the photography of women as a celebration of beauty - whilst it lasts. Sometimes the pictures worked out, and sometimes not; but the intent was usually always the same.

Rob

[Nelsonretreat]

"The man is entitled to his opinion, but reading the above quotation makes me think he's not very familiar with the genre beyond the level of jus' lookin' which is not a place from which to pontificate."

First of all, can we dispense with the Trumpian insults? I expressed an opinion. Because you don't agree with it does not entitle you to be discourteous. By all means disagree, the whole purpose of a forum is to express and consider divergent views, but have the good manners to restrict yourself to the issue under consideration rather than the person.

Allow me not to address your argument as I understand it

You write:

"But in both cases, I think they speak their own language very well and clearly"

Then you say

"As for the two images being clichés, finding anything today that's not one is a miracle; "

You have elegantly and succinctly proved my point that the 'language' of these overpaid and overhyped 'star' photographers is cliched. The whole intent of my article was to argue that Beckham junior might possible have more originality.


Rob

[Nelsonretreat]

oops..please delete 'Rob' in your imagination from my post above. I guess you will have worked out I was replying to Rob not trying to impersonate him!

[Rob C]

Here we go again: prickly Nelsonian retreat into indignation!

1. My remark was made towards the author (are you the author of the website to which you refer us?), a landscape guy, not a fashionista - hence perhaps the most unlikely person to know anything much about either of the two celeb shooter that are quoted. I see not a vestige of Señor Trump, but certainly, a little of his abilty to make real money would not have gone wrong in my own life!

As you write, let's concentrate on the issues, but I see the origins of the OP as part of the problem, if not the entire issue.

2. Because I think that finding anything new (in all of photography) beyond cliché will be a major miracle in no way diminishes the abilty of Mario or Annie to produce very competent work, based on decades of getting to learn and finesse how to do that. Young Beckham wasn't even yet soiling his nappies when these cats were already at the top, a pinnacle from which they still await dislodgement, though I doubt they are holding their breath.

"You have elegantly and succinctly proved my point that the 'language' of these overpaid and overhyped 'star' photographers is cliched. The whole intent of my article was to argue that Beckham junior might possible have more originality."

And in order to try to do this, we have to attack the fine reputation of two 'stars', and diss them, in the wan hope of making some shakey point that one could even imagine to be no more than veiled envy?

"... you don't agree with it does not entitle you to be discourteous."

Exactly; couldn't have put it better myself.

Rob C

[Nelsonretreat]

Here we go again: prickly Nelsonian retreat into indignation!

Rob C

You mistake indignation for a desire to conduct discussion in a courteous manner without resort to personal comments about the poster. I think it's indicative of the vitality of photography that we can have a spirited discussion about the merits of someone like Testino. What is sad is your apparent need to personalise it with comments about 'veiled envy'. They add nothing to the discussion except a taint of discourtesy.

[Rob C]

You mistake indignation for a desire to conduct discussion in a courteous manner without resort to personal comments about the poster. I think it's indicative of the vitality of photography that we can have a spirited discussion about the merits of someone like Testino. What is sad is your apparent need to personalise it with comments about 'veiled envy'. They add nothing to the discussion except a taint of discourtesy.

I felt the need? So what in all that's sacred was the attack on Leibovitz and Testino if not exactly that, a discourtesy? Neither is it clear yet if you are the guy who made the original remark; you chose not to answer that. Perhaps you might also care to tell us how you know what's the right payment for such photographers, and when they are 'overpaid'. In my understanding of business, the right level of price is the best one you can get. (I hardly need to make a 'quotation' on that point - you know where it is all by yourself.)

But then, the use of a nom de plume and/or nom de guerre says quite a lot by itself. Be who you are; less confusing for everyone, including, no doubt, the self. But really, who cares?

Rob C