16yr Old photographer Gets Gig for Burberry Fragrance Campaign

[Nelsonretreat]

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

Wow! You just can't leave the personal stuff out can you?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Given that we are debating here opinions, which are deeply personal by definition, not facts, not theories, not a general stance, the person behind, his motivation, where he comes from, is inextricably linked to understanding the context. In legal terms, it is known as a "character evidence." It simply helps us understand better why you say what you say.

[Nelsonretreat]

Given that we are debating here opinions, which are deeply personal by definition, not facts, not theories, not a general stance, the person behind, his motivation, where he comes from, is inextricably linked to understanding the context. In legal terms, it is known as a "character evidence." It simply helps us understand better why you say what you say.

I repeat my point. Difference of opinion does not excuse discourtesy.

[Rob C]

Wow! You just can't leave the personal stuff out can you?

If you make personal remarks expect similar in return. Perhaps you might be able to explain how discourse without any of them can exist? It's all a matter of different points of view, some based on reality and some mistakenly not. The difference is partly subjective but largely based on one's personal situation and experience of life. Assuming, by now, that you are the website owner, and your OP refernece to Google was actually to the website, your entire little write-up was an attack, in most direct terms, on two very competent photographers not in a position to answer for themselves; though of course, to be fair, I doubt either could give a flying fig for your opinions about them... and about as much for mine.

But regardless, you didn't/can't? answer the points made. I repeat 'em, just in case they flew unnoticed, right over your head:

"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.)"

Rob C

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

According to Warhol, both Annie's and Testino's pictures were good pictures:

[landscapephoto]

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.

This discussion attracted my attention because I posted something about the same subject earlier here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107964.0.

But this remark about pseudonyms somewhat surprises me. When I registered for this forum, I understood that pseudonyms were allowed. With time, I have come to realise that maybe it was not such a great idea. Could you please enlighten me on what the accepted practice is supposed to be?

As a side note, I would like to say that I have been active on the Internet for over 20 years. 20 years ago, pseudonyms were the norm. Nowadays it seems that one is expected to publish a professional website with a list of customers and a facebook account with a horde of family members, close friends and followers to vouch for one's significance. So maybe I missed an essential paradigm shift?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... But this remark about pseudonyms somewhat surprises me. When I registered for this forum, I understood that pseudonyms were allowed...

They are still allowed. Moderators, however, recommend using real names, and have stated repeatedly that they will have less patience for misbehaving of members who posts under pseudonyms.

Real names (and associated creative presence on the web or otherwise) add something valuable to posted opinions, for better or worse. It may enhance or detract from credibility, but it certainly adds an extra element for each of us to determine one way or another.

[Nelsonretreat]

If you make personal remarks expect similar in return.
But regardless, you didn't/can't? answer the points made. I repeat 'em, just in case they flew unnoticed, right over your head:

Rob C

In my article I wrote:
"Her (Leibowitz's)work has been featured in magazines all over the world and some of it has been truly outstanding and original"

I then made a detailed critique of a specific photograph she had taken and concluded that if you had not known Leibowitz had taken the image you might assume a 16 yr old had.  This then led into my argument that Beckham was not as outrageous a choice as might first appear.

Mr C. (I'm sorry I could find no further identifying information) confuses critique for discourtesy. Mr C.  has not engaged with my contention that the two images i cited were unoriginal and cliched other than appearing to agree with that view.  His one relevant comment that engaged with a specific point of my critique was'
'Ah, of course: he likes the ones with legs bolted together at the knees. Maybe he's a mechanic.'

Mr C. has peppered his posts with comments about my unsuitability to comment on fashion photography because I have taken landscape photographs, my failure to provide personal details in my profile while at the same time saying 'who cares?' and decided that "the writer (nelsonretreat) hasn't a friggin' clue about the ethos." 

My father taught me a valuable leson which I am happy to offer to Mr C. "You win arguments by destroying your opponent's case not attacking his person."
 

[Rob C]

In my article I wrote:
"Her (Leibowitz's)work has been featured in magazines all over the world and some of it has been truly outstanding and original"

I then made a detailed critique of a specific photograph she had taken

1.  and concluded that if you had not known Leibowitz had taken the image you might assume a 16 yr old had.  This then led into my argument that Beckham was not as outrageous a choice as might first appear.

2.   Mr C. (I'm sorry I could find no further identifying information) confuses critique for discourtesy. Mr C.  has not engaged with my contention that the two images i cited were unoriginal and cliched other than appearing to agree with that view.  His one relevant comment that engaged with a specific point of my critique was'
'Ah, of course: he likes the ones with legs bolted together at the knees. Maybe he's a mechanic.'

Mr C. has peppered his posts with comments about my unsuitability to comment on fashion photography because I have taken landscape photographs, my failure to provide personal details in my profile while at the same time saying 'who cares?' and decided that "the writer (nelsonretreat) hasn't a friggin' clue about the ethos." 

3.   My father taught me a valuable leson which I am happy to offer to Mr C. "You win arguments by destroying your opponent's case not attacking his person."

1.    You don't consider that a gratuitous slur?

And how about as in the original statement: " 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"

And: "Frankly a monkey could probably take a better pic so I have no doubt Beckham junior will do a reasonably good job."

Also of note: "You have elegantly and succinctly proved my point that the 'language' of these overpaid and overhyped 'star' photographers is cliched." Which of course, isn't the case at all: I mentioned the impossibility of finding anything anymore that hasn't been done to death and is, therefore, inevitably cliché. Neither did I project any notion of their being 'overpaid'.

2.    Did you try to look at the website info below the posts? Offers all the relevant info anyone requires.

3.    Daddy was right; and that also holds when applied to third parties such as the two snappers whom I consider you managed to attack, for no apparent good reason.

Your position is indefensible; not making your OP would have been the better decision. Shifting your goalposts don't cut it.

Over and out.

Rob C

[landscapephoto]

They are still allowed. Moderators, however, recommend using real names, and have stated repeatedly that they will have less patience for misbehaving of members who posts under pseudonyms.

Real names (and associated creative presence on the web or otherwise) add something valuable to posted opinions, for better or worse. It may enhance or detract from credibility, but it certainly adds an extra element for each of us to determine one way or another.

You have probably seen this in the other thread, but maybe the others have not. On the subject of Internet "Identity" and the associated social validation, I would like to site a video by hacker artist Constant Dullaart, who tried to demonstrate the problems underlying social validation by actually creating an army of followers and see what would happen.

The conference was presented in the latest chaos computer club congress and can be seen or downloaded here: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7517-the_possibility_of_an_army

A fascinating show. The part about the army, facebook and instagram starts at 17:00.

I think this is related to the subject: Brooklyn Beckham's opinion on fashion counts because he is validated by over 6 millions followers (!) and Nelsonretreat or mine does not because we are anonymous and therefore backed by nobody?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

@Nelsonretreat.

Have Annie Leibowitz, Vogue, Mario Testino, Allure, Brooklyn Beckham and Burberry given you permission to reproduce and use their images?

He didn't need to get the permission. It is a fair use, i.e., used for critique and discussion purposes.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Landscapephoto, you lost me.

What are you trying to say (without asking me to spend the next half an hour of my life watching some "hacker artist" show, that is)?

[Nelsonretreat]

And: "Frankly a monkey could probably take a better pic so I have no doubt Beckham junior will do a reasonably good job."


2.    Did you try to look at the website info below the posts? Offers all the relevant info anyone requires.

Rob C

Mr C. This is so much better! You are learning to actually look at what I wrote not at irrelevant personal issues! Well done! You caught me out well and truly here. Extra points to you!

re the website info.. Please don't be offended but life is too short to click on the url beneath everyone's post. I'm interested in what people have to say not who they are. I don't like referring to you as Mr C. but it's your choice to use a 'nomo de plume' and I respect it.

[IanB]

You are all missing the point completely, so please stop shouting at each other. The Burberry gig has absolutely nothing to do with quality or originality of photography or misrepresentation of women etc., etc. It is entirely a function of young Beckham's 6.2 million Instagram followers - Burberry are buying access to these, and it's probably pretty good value for money in blunt marketing terms. Who cares what the photos are like as long as they show product to potential customers?

The really interesting question is probably why the lad has so many followers in the first place, but I'm not sure I want to think about that - his dad may have an opinion!

[landscapephoto]

You are all missing the point completely, so please stop shouting at each other. The Burberry gig has absolutely nothing to do with quality or originality of photography or misrepresentation of women etc., etc. It is entirely a function of young Beckham's 6.2 million Instagram followers - Burberry are buying access to these

Yes, absolutely. Besides, he has been presenting himself as a "Burberry fan" for quite some time on his instagram already.

The really interesting question is probably why the lad has so many followers in the first place, but I'm not sure I want to think about that - his dad may have an opinion!

Actually, it seems that the real marketing genius is his mother.

Now, getting millions of followers is pretty easy when one is already related to someone famous. Just a line listing the url of your feed in an article about your parents will go a long way. If you are not related to someone famous, it simply is more expensive.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You are all missing the point completely, so please stop shouting at each other. The Burberry gig has absolutely nothing to do with quality or originality of photography or misrepresentation of women etc., etc. It is entirely a function of young Beckham's 6.2 million Instagram followers...

I think you are missing the point completely. This thread indeed is not about Burberry, Beckham, or Instagram. The point of the OP is to serve as just another pretext for the author's ongoing tirade against photographers and photography styles he dislikes.

[Nelsonretreat]

The point of the OP is to serve as just another pretext for the author's ongoing tirade against photographers and photography styles he dislikes.

The only reason I have pursued this thread for as long as  I have is that I believe, sadly,  that the internet has become a place where personal invective is substituted for resoned argument. Saying that an article is a 'tirade' or Mr C's comment that i don't have a 'friggin clue' leave little room for debate. It's not unlike the Trumpian tactic of calling people 'losers' and 'low evergy' rather than addressing their argument.

I give up!  You win!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...the internet has become a place where personal invective is substituted for resoned argument...

Ok, you seem to be all for a courteous and reasoned debate.

Let's learn from your own examples. This is what you said about other photographers or their work, some famous, some from this forum:

sententious, pompous, self-important
jackasses
‘experts'
garbage
appallingly dismissive and insulting
mean and nasty
a monkey could probably take a better pic
unimaginative and cliched jobbing photographer
asshole*

I personally have nothing against such a language, if that is how you want to express your reasoned arguments. I heard worse (including about me). I believe in freedom of speech and the "sticks and stones..." adage. What is annoying, however, is your constant whining about "discourtesy" of others, when you get the taste of your own medicine in return.

*EDITED to add the last compliment you paid to one of our forum members after I posted the above list

[Nelsonretreat]

What is annoying, however, is your constant whining about "discourtesy" of others, when you get the taste of your own medicine in return.

I'm so glad there is a policeman on these forums to point out the error of all our ways and to teach people lessons!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I'm so glad there is a policeman on these forums to point out the error of all our ways and to teach people lessons!

"...a desire to conduct discussion in a courteous manner without resort to personal comments about the poster..." (Nelsonretreat)

What happened to that desire of yours?

Portraying me as a "policeman" isn't a personal comment? And your sarcasm isn't an evasive maneuver to avoid addressing "reasoned arguments" that you apparently value so highly?