Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: Yoram from Berlin on January 24, 2009, 03:46:32 am
-
OMG, I thought I was so over Annie Leibowitz. I have no use for celebrity photos beyond admiring them from a technical point of view, but I have really come around in terms of how I perceive her work.
I really admire her work now, no question, but it got to a point where all I ever saw were those (wonderful) Vanity Fair spreads.
Then someone gave me her book "A Photographer's Life" and I was taken by how naturally she interweaves her professional work, her personal images, and her own creative discoveries.
My wife and I watch a lot of documentaries, and films about photographers are obviously a favorite topic. A couple of weeks ago we watched "Life Through a Lens", a fabulous summary of her life and work thus far.
Now I just got a belated Hanukkah present, a copy of her newest book "At Work."
I cannot recommend this book strongly enough. She takes one or two of her images, and spends a few paragraphs or pages discusses them with us (the reader). Sometimes it's just about the subject, or the setting, but also the image: composition, gear (digital and film, btw), or lighting. There's even a kind of FAQ as well. The book is really targeted at fellow photographers.
I will be meeting her here in Berlin in February, can't wait!
-
I imagine that the documentary of which you speak is the one conducted in a car by her sister? That it´s easy to become a photographer when your early life is already trained to perceive the world in a frame because you have seen it already mainly through the frame of a car window?
Well yes, I enjoyed it very much too - I have it on DVD now - and it revealed a woman/a work that I hadn´t known much about. It´s funny, though, how photographers do things with their lives; funny how for some it goes as they sort of plan, for others it just happens in a certain way despite what they really intended and for yet others, it just doesn´t happen at all.
Enjoy your meeting and make a list of questions!
Rob C
-
Just remembered: there was a thread running here somewhere a while ago about portraiture and character. I also seem to remember that there was a lot of flak sent my way when I offered the thought that character and its representation in portraiture is more dream than reality.
Well now, on the basis that St Annie is accepted as one of the world´s most successful portrait shooters, I chose my words with care, and perhaps if we are speaking about the same documentary, Iron Flatline might be able to confirm that both Annie and another lady of moment stated fairly plainly that photography does not show character, that it shows what the person you are shooting wants you to see.
As the photographer has spent most of her life shooting people, and as I too spent mine in the same profession also shooting people, perhaps my opinion might actually have had a little weight. It´s always helpful when your mouth is where much of your life has been.
I do hope it was the same documentary...
Rob C
-
"it´s easy to become a photographer when your early life is already trained to perceive the world in a frame because you have seen it already mainly through the frame of a car window?"
Interesting idea. However it won't make you a great or even a good photographer without some innate talent.
-
"it´s easy to become a photographer when your early life is already trained to perceive the world in a frame because you have seen it already mainly through the frame of a car window?"
Interesting idea. However it won't make you a great or even a good photographer without some innate talent.
Just to make it clear: I was paraphrasing/quoting Annie here, as closely as memory allows; her opinion not mine.
Innate talent. Yes, I think it sure helps, but then so do so many other things that happen to you on the journey, things which you can never arrange to happen nor, perhaps, avoid happening. It cuts in both ways.
Rob C
-
Personally I'm kind of neutral on her work. A great deal of it was planned by committee and executed by a large crew.
As for the whole celebrity aspect, it's just basically pictures of actors, who have a built in following of silly people who some how think that they're special and any picture of them will leave them swooning.
My take on celebrity photography is that it's only interesting to me if has would have the same impact if the subject had been someone not famous. Then if it sings, it's a great picture.
I also don't really revere the work of photographers with ACCESS. Just because you have been allowed access, doesn't make the work great. Just because you're allowed an hour with Johnny Depp does not make the pictures special. Any more than an hour photographing the crew of a landed UFO does not make you a great photographer, it just means you got access. The pictures might be interesting buy that does not elevate you to the status of a great photographer.
To me Annie is a competent photographer, with the backing of a marketing machine that in turn promotes her and gives her incredible access. Stay tuned for her next book due out Christmas of 2009.
Michael
-
[quote name='blansky' date='Jan 24 2009, 06:43 PM' post='254232']
"My take on celebrity photography is that it's only interesting to me if has would have the same impact if the subject had been someone not famous. Then if it sings, it's a great picture."
That´s true, but it´s a measure of celebrity that Joe Soap is never as interesting as the celeb.
"I also don't really revere the work of photographers with ACCESS. Just because you have been allowed access, doesn't make the work great. Just because you're allowed an hour with Johnny Depp does not make the pictures special. Any more than an hour photographing the crew of a landed UFO does not make you a great photographer, it just means you got access. The pictures might be interesting buy that does not elevate you to the status of a great photographer."
But isn´t access granted on the strength, reputation, of the photographer´s work? Catch 22 perhaps, but you gotta start the circle somewhere. Once it was started by the photographic agency: Magnum, Globe Photos for example; today it runs on the "educated" whim of the celeb´s press agent, a different type of cat altogether, far more concerned with his/her own survival.
"To me Annie is a competent photographer, with the backing of a marketing machine that in turn promotes her and gives her incredible access. Stay tuned for her next book due out Christmas of 2009."
Yep, certainly competent but as with several star photographers, there seems to be an Achilles heel when it comes to being their turn to shoot a Pirelli Calendar. I have no idea why this should be, whether by too much art direction, whether because of too little; whatever the reason, it often seems to me that the photographer has simply been overwhelmed. I wonder if it´s because of the understanding that the product will be so scrutinised by hordes of other shooters, possibly more so than any other campaign?
Rob C
-
I wrote this a few years ago for a post in APUG about this type of photography. I'm obviously not a writer.
Everyone knows the stories of Ansel Adams and how he camped out for hours and days to get the incredible photographs that he is famous for.
However, there is a hot new photographer named Ansel Liebowitz doing the same type of work. He has recently been commissioned by Landscape Incorporated to produce the covers for the magazine called Terra Faire.
The progression of this cover shot is as follows:
Day 1. Executive meeting in New York with editor, photo editor, art director, location director, 2 writers, Ansel Liebowitz and his assistant , the stylist, and two interns. The discussion, the cover for May, three months away. Apparently there is a movie coming out on May 5th that features a lot of locations shots in and around the Sierras.
Day 2. Meeting with Ansel, his four assistants, stylist, art director, location director and 2 location scouts and 2 interns. Find the perfect location, check on snow, moon location, time of day etc and report back to Ansel by early next week.
Day 9. Meeting. Same group as day 2. Location scouts report that they have helicoptered around the area and have 3 locations that could be perfect. They produce photographs showing the entire area and included are the position of the sun, moon and at what times. Snow may be a problem.
Day 11. Meeting. Same group. Location is decided upon. Two assistants are sent to the area to camp out and report back when conditions are perfect. The other assistant is sent to round up rental equipment for the shoot. The location manager is sent to arrange for transportation air and ground, for Ansel and his group as well as for equipment, for the day the shoot is decided upon.
Day 19. Sierras. Weather is perfect.
Using their satellite phone the assistants contact New York. The shoot is set for 5pm. The equipment has arrived and has been set up. Ansel jumps in a limo and heads to the private airport. After a grueling 4 hour flight which he sleeps through aboard the company jet, he arrives at the nearest airport, and jumps into a helicopter to take him 30 miles to the staging area.
A Hummer picks him up and then deposits him at the site at exactly 4:30 PM. Unfortunately the driver, not used to the slick roads, fails to stop in time and runs smack dab right into the catering truck. The doughnuts are OK but the capiccino machine and one intern is ruined. Oh well.
Luckily the set decorator arrived yesterday, in time to hire 3 local Sikorskys to drop 500 tons of fresh snow in patchy areas to even out the flats before the mountains. The valley floor is alive with the rhymthic whine of the six semi trailer generator trucks pumping power to the 126 strategically placed strobes filling the valley with light as the assistants tweak the set up working on polaroids. Ansel, wearing his new trumpeter swan down jacket jumps out of the Hummer and looks at the polaroids and yes it's perfect.
He trips the shutter and just to be sure trips it twenty more times as his dutiful assistants skillfully switch the film holders in and out. The shoot had to be interrupted once, while one of his assistants shot a pesky bear cub that kept edging into the shot. But right on schedule, ten minutes later, Ansel is back in the Hummer heading for the helicopter to take him to the airport. He has a gallery opening to attend later tonight.
Day 45. Executive meeting New York. Editor, photoeditor art director,
2 writers, Ansel Liebowitz and his assistant, 1 intern. Ansel, freshly tanned, back from the Bahamas, looks over the pictures which have been photoshopped and printed. They naturally, are admired all around. Ansel - another perfect shoot.
Day 90. The magazine hits the newstands to rave reviews and Ansel has done it again.
Another book is in the works. Just in time for Christmas.
Michael
-
Business is business, and if a person uses a camera to make a living, he or she is by definition a photographer.
...but that wasn't the point of my post. Just to reiterate, I was impressed by the Non-Corporate work. I'm not that into the big-budget production stuff, largely because there's little I can learn from it. I don't shoot that way, and probably never will. But her other work is very good, and that gets little attention... unless you seek it out, or see it in the books/films I referenced.
-
...it won't make you a great or even a good photographer without some innate talent.
Innate talent? So, that would be something encoded in your DNA? Could be, I suppose, if we're talking about pattern-recognition. More likely what would appear to be "innate talent" in photography is a result of years of looking at other pictures. Followed by lots of practice, and looking at lots more pictures.
-
Innate talent? So, that would be something encoded in your DNA? Could be, I suppose, if we're talking about pattern-recognition. More likely what would appear to be "innate talent" in photography is a result of years of looking at other pictures. Followed by lots of practice, and looking at lots more pictures.
You all may be interested in picking up and reading Malcolm Gladwell's latest book "Outliers" In particular the chapter that deals with what he calls the 10,000 hour rule.
-
Innate talent? So, that would be something encoded in your DNA? Could be, I suppose, if we're talking about pattern-recognition. More likely what would appear to be "innate talent" in photography is a result of years of looking at other pictures. Followed by lots of practice, and looking at lots more pictures.
Well you might have a point there, but it would not explain why some people can look at all the pictures in the world and achieve nothing, whilst others can do the same yet succeed using their own handwriting.
Talent most certainly does exist - I have seen a lot of it, as I have its lack. And it is not something to be confused with simple technical competence either.
Getting back to the lady in question, prior to that documentary she was someone of whom I knew little beyond the fact that she had worked with Rolling Stone, of which I knew even less. I was aware of her Gimme More shots, of course, of her appointment to Vanity Fair. It is only now, post-documentary, that I have learned there is quite a lot more to her than I´d imagined, not that I had even bothered to imagine anything much at all about her.
To sum it up, I view her with more respect now than I did before. Can´t be bad!
Rob C
-
After reading about Annie's book "At Work", I went to Borders Books this weekend and bought it. I started reading it this morning and it's well written and captivating. Definitely worth the $40.
Cheers.
Bud
-
Innate talent? So, that would be something encoded in your DNA? Could be, I suppose, if we're talking about pattern-recognition. More likely what would appear to be "innate talent" in photography is a result of years of looking at other pictures. Followed by lots of practice, and looking at lots more pictures.
You all may be interested in picking up and reading Malcolm Gladwell's latest book "Outliers" In particular the chapter that deals with what he calls the 10,000 hour rule.
What people repeatedly fail to understand is the dedication to work so very hard is also a natural talent. Plus without innate ability you cannot create. Practising for 10,000 hours to play the piano very well is fine as you'll be a fine pianist and will be able to play music that others have written, but being able to write a beautiful tune on a piano is not simply a matter of practice. Same goes for photography or any creative endeavour, I include science here as that is very creative too.
The other thing that Gladwell states is that people from advantageous background do better, success breeds success apparently. His next book 'Color' posits that the shocking theory that black paint may reflect less light than white paint.
There's an apposite expression that springs to mind whenever people dismiss natural talent and say it's just practice - 'you can't polish a turd'. I've ridden with Steve Peat [World Champion DownHill mountain biker] and his comment on this view was - "If it's just a matter of practice, why aren't there loads of people as good as me? Plenty of riders practice way more than me". Like many talented people, he makes the incredibly difficult look effortless.
JDC your dismissal of inate talent being based on consuming other examples and regurgitating your own work ignores the awkward fact that in new fields, there is no one to learn from. In a similar vein - I do various partner dances and with one of them Modern Jive [nothing like the awful Ballroom Jive], I'm good at simply because I looked at how it was done/taught and decided it was fundamentally flawed. So I then changed to my own own way of movement/lead-follow and am a much better dancer for ignoring prior art as it were. So you can also become good by rejecting what has gone before.
-
JDC your dismissal of inate talent being based on consuming other examples and regurgitating your own work...
Dismissal? Please re-read my post. I questioned what it means, and offered an opinion on what it could be based on. Far from dismissal.
-
I'll take cue from Michael here and lay by bias open; I've always been a fan of her work.
I also thought that £12 to get in to her exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery was excessive and refused to pay.
I met a couple of girls by chance in town and took them around the place. They had come over from Belgium to see the exhibition and insisted I accompany them.
I have NEVER ever seen such an inspiring exhibit at a gallery before and I doubt I will again. It was nothing like I had expected. To me, Annie Lebowitz is a "star" photographer -Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair and all that stuff I'm not so into - the reason for me admiring her work was that she could persuade people to do things you wouldn't necessarily expect - Whoopi Goldberg in a bath of milk, Chris Rock "whited up" - to me it was the high art end of bubblegum much of the time - and I happen to like a little bubblegum every now and then
The exhibition left me with a very different opinion. The 4x6 pictures intermingled with 40" prints were the real stars often and my closest point of comparisson after seeing the exhibition was that other much lamented photographer, HCB. The poigniency of her pictures of family ad friends was touching. The one of R2D2 in a packing case, somehow genius. The shots of Patti Smith were also favourites. The horror of Sarejevo was depicted with "subtle brutality" and best of all - this post is far far more pretentious than the stuff written on the walls. Normally artists are so silly in their descriptions and explanations - her words were a breath of fresh air in the stuffy gallery world.
I maintain that, subsidised by two sponsors and the tax payer, £12 is profiteering - but ethics be damned! I'd pay it again.
-
Dismissal? Please re-read my post. I questioned what it means, and offered an opinion on what it could be based on. Far from dismissal.
I did. It still reads like a dismissal to me. Might not be what you meant, but that's how it comes across.
The perils of the written word!
-
What is interesting about this discussion on Annie L. is that people's views on her work seem to be based on a select and possible quite unrepresentitive sample of her work.
I normally like AL's work, commercial + personal, but the recent Lavazzo ads are remarkably awful as they look cheap, amateurish and crass.
-
It´s all that caffeine, Futt Futt.
But then, I don´t think that many people manage to translate their usual quality into these "name" calendar exercises. I think she failed, too, with her Pirelli as I think did Joyce Tenneson; all personal opinion, of course, but I do honestly think that I detect a fear, almost a case of the thing being a challenge too far.
The surprising thing is that some of the early ones (Pirelli) that created the reputation now seem (again, just personal) strangely weak. For me, I have to repeat my belief that there were three great ones: Sarah Moon´s and the two Francis Giacobetti efforts. Later ones seem to have become very much more wrapped up in trying to be "about" something rather than simply just beautiful photographs. Funny thing: whilst I thought that Hans Feurer worked wonders with Pentax calendars, his Pirelli didn´t excite me too much beyond a single shot, a half-length sitting number with a girl looking out to the left (her right) of the page, a cap on her head and some sunlit strands of hair making the important detail at the face which is otherwise in shadow. Brilliant. Clive Arrowsmith did some beautiful photography too, but it was lost in myth and overproduction, I think.
It could be that when there is a brief, an art director, or any form of pre-conceived concept that some photoraphers find it too much. I imagine that somebody based in reportage will not enjoy working to another´s brief; that it will also prove somewhat unpleasant for a so-called art photographer to work to instruction. If, of course, there is any. There used to be.
jjj, you are UK-based: did you see any of the Mintex productions of yesteryear? Derek Forsyth who was the AD behind the first tranche of Pirellis was also a presence behind Mintex ones; beautiful work there, too.
Rob C
-
Personally I'm kind of neutral on her work. A great deal of it was planned by committee and executed by a large crew.
As for the whole celebrity aspect, it's just basically pictures of actors, who have a built in following of silly people who some how think that they're special and any picture of them will leave them swooning.
My take on celebrity photography is that it's only interesting to me if has would have the same impact if the subject had been someone not famous. Then if it sings, it's a great picture.
I also don't really revere the work of photographers with ACCESS. Just because you have been allowed access, doesn't make the work great. Just because you're allowed an hour with Johnny Depp does not make the pictures special. Any more than an hour photographing the crew of a landed UFO does not make you a great photographer, it just means you got access. The pictures might be interesting buy that does not elevate you to the status of a great photographer.
To me Annie is a competent photographer, with the backing of a marketing machine that in turn promotes her and gives her incredible access. Stay tuned for her next book due out Christmas of 2009.
Michael
I haven't seen enough of Annie Leibowitz work to comment but on the your general point about reputations and access I totally agree. Access might be a measure of business acumen but definitely not photographic skill. I've grown fed up with bored rich kids taking up "photography" and getting exhibitions on the strength of a) photographing their celebrity friends, getting their gallery owning parents friends to give them wallspace.
BTW, before anyone responds, yes I am bitter and twisted (!) Just to contradict myself, abiity to get close "access" to the fauna is most definitely a core skill for a wildlife photographer.
-
Just to contradict myself, abiity to get close "access" to the fauna is most definitely a core skill for a wildlife photographer.
[/quote]
Are the two not branches of the same thing, celebrity and wildlife?
Rob C
-
Just to contradict myself, abiity to get close "access" to the fauna is most definitely a core skill for a wildlife photographer.
Are the two not branches of the same thing, celebrity and wildlife?
Rob C
At first I though about saying something like, "Yes, but the celebrity won't chew off your arm, or spit venom in your eyes, so the wildlife photgrapher also has to have the skills to get away from the fauna." Then I realized that was a distinction without a difference, in this case.
-
At first I though about saying something like, "Yes, but the celebrity won't chew off your arm, or spit venom in your eyes, so the wildlife photgrapher also has to have the skills to get away from the fauna." Then I realized that was a distinction without a difference, in this case.
You see the benefits of life in New Mexico: you can have your cake and eat it too.
Rob C
-
You see the benefits of life in New Mexico: you can have your cake and eat it too.
Rob C
Indeed. Did you see that here in New Mexico, Christian Bale acted like some of that dangerous wildlife? Complete with the venom in the face and threats of arm removal.
-
Indeed. Did you see that here in New Mexico, Christian Bale acted like some of that dangerous wildlife? Complete with the venom in the face and threats of arm removal.
Who is Christian Bale? Sorry, couldn´t resist that; made me think of men of straw.
Rob C
-
Who is Christian Bale? Sorry, couldn´t resist that; made me think of men of straw.
Rob C
I never bother to read stories about the foibles of actors or musicians, so when I hear about them at all, it's from friends, radio or TV. I have no idea how is name spelled, only I'm thinking the letters "ass" ought to be in there somewhere.
-
I never bother to read stories about the foibles of actors or musicians, so when I hear about them at all, it's from friends, radio or TV. I have no idea how is name spelled, only I'm thinking the letters "ass" ought to be in there somewhere.
I also wouldn't believe a lot of the press about celebrities, so much of it is made up either by newpapers/magazines to sell more copies or by idiot PR people to keep attention on their clients.
Sometimes celebrities get so fed up with all the nonsense, they start making lots of it up themselves to make the media look stupid. Moby very amusingly did that when he suddenly became megafamous.
I've worked a few times with a well known actor who avoids the idiot press and at one time had trouble when visiting his home town as the media said he hated the place, he didn't , but it sold papers, so who cares if people get hurt in the process.
-
You want to see some nice nudes by Annie? IMO, these are some of her best images:
http://www.houkgallery.com/leibovitz-women/leibovitz.html (http://www.houkgallery.com/leibovitz-women/leibovitz.html)
-
IMO, these are some of her best images:
http://www.houkgallery.com/leibovitz-women/leibovitz.html (http://www.houkgallery.com/leibovitz-women/leibovitz.html)
Then God help the rest. If you wish to look at meat on a slab, then in my opinion you have found the right place. I fully understand why the rotten illumination.
Rob C
-
Then God help the rest. If you wish to look at meat on a slab, then in my opinion you have found the right place. I fully understand why the rotten illumination.
Rob C
My thoughts were similar, Rob. I don't find those nudes in the least inspiring. Perhaps her goal was, zero titillation.
-
My thoughts were similar, Rob. I don't find those nudes in the least inspiring. Perhaps her goal was, zero titillation.
If so, Ray, then she achieved her aim!
I have a problem with this sort of stuff, in that it seems to have little raison d´étre other than to be the opposite of glamour, so much the opposite that it ends up holding hands with the very genre that it has been designed to defeat; a complete circle, in fact, where the two opposing styles become one in unpleasantness.
I have a theory, which is just a theory, which postulates that ultra successful photographers develop a sort of guilt or doubt about their success, a vague suspicion that they really do have feet of clay, and that there grows a need to venture into fresh pastures in a quest for new, but totally unnecessary, validation. It would seem that this sometimes takes them in the direction of "art" photography, an endeavour which has enough uncertainties of its own to make their emotional state a hundred times worse than it might have been if they had simply accepted their glory for what it is and just got on with the job of doing well in their professional life.
Ah, the woes and angst of the famous.
Rob C
-
Indeed. Did you see that here in New Mexico, Christian Bale acted like some of that dangerous wildlife? Complete with the venom in the face and threats of arm removal.
See this (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/40982)!
Jeremy
-
You got me Jeremy. I didn't realize I was looking at The Onion until I got to the part about Nicole having the power to decapitate a human being. Goes to show how we've come to expect insanity when we read about the exploits of entertainers these days. Small wonder that people like Nick Brandt prefer to take their chances with lions and hippos; and after seeing what's left of Joachin Phoenix on the Letterman program last week, I'd say it's a good bet that the wildlife smells a bit better as well.
-
Then God help the rest. If you wish to look at meat on a slab, then in my opinion you have found the right place. I fully understand why the rotten illumination.
Rob C
My thoughts were similar, Rob. I don't find those nudes in the least inspiring. Perhaps her goal was, zero titillation.
Neither of you have quite grasped the concept of different tastes have you? And it's somewhat arrogant to assume your taste is so superior to everyone else's. You sound like some dodery old codgers bemoaning the clothes the young are wearing and the awful music they listen to, which only shows how little and not how much they know.
Plus [art] nude photos are not just for sexual titilation, if that's what you want, buy an appropriate magazine.
-
My thoughts were similar, Rob. I don't find those nudes in the least inspiring. Perhaps her goal was, zero titillation.
Neither of you have quite grasped the concept of different tastes have you? And it's somewhat arrogant to assume your taste is so superior to everyone else's. You sound like some dodery old codgers bemoaning the clothes the young are wearing and the awful music they listen to, which only shows how little and not how much they know.
Plus [art] nude photos are not just for sexual titilation, if that's what you want, buy an appropriate magazine.
Yes we have, jjj. We are both old enough to know that tastes can vary wildly. There's sometimes no accounting for taste. What I'm interested in is learning why something I find totally uninteresting, might actually be a valuable comment on something.
You have failed in your above post to inform us (or anyone else) why you think those nudes by Annie Leibovitz are interesting. Your response is no more than an ad hominem attack.
-
Actually, most of of the opposition to her work in this thread insists on mentioning her success and her proximity to celebrity...
-
Futt Futt, again you jump to conclusions about the desires of another. I am, if anything, less interrested in erotic images than I have ever been, but if you wish to include eroticism (implied by the suggestion of magazines) then Mz L fails utterly to produce it, by my measurements, and fails as utterly to provide any alternative emotional connect for me other than one of revulsion (of the images, not of herself).
Should one wish to do nudes, then if not a celebration of beauty, what do we have - its opposite? Scenes from an abattoir come to mind in this instance. Quite seriously though, and not wishing to score points at all, what can be the purpose of doing nudes unless to create beauty? Can it be the buzz of the presence of a naked person when you are, presumably, not naked too? Is the buzz to do with physical presence and a sense of sexual power over another? Is it a need simply to look at a naked other? Of Ms L´s sexuality I know little other than what is implied in her sister´s documentary, so perhaps it´s a sexual thing anyway, much as it often is between male photographer and female model on some levels.
By the way, I can´t quite find where I claimed to have superior taste to anyone else; I might well so have, but I´d let that remain my little secret. Music? How far back does your taste go? I could have given you a run for your money with jazz, vintages New Orleans, Chicago, St Louis etc. through r´n´b and r´n´r and diversions into swing but what would that prove, other than I care little for much that happened post Stones, as I think you once declared - or was it post Beatles? Much the same time, anyway. But still eff-all to do with that series of abysmal naked corpses which is where we came in.
And the age references; what makes you think Ms Annie is some spring chicken? What makes you make the connection between age (your personal cutt-off number not mentioned) and having valid opinions? Do people older than you frighten you, shame you, embarrass you or just turn you off? What a mysterious concept hidden within there somewhere!
Rob C
-
You want to see some nice nudes by Annie? IMO, these are some of her best images:
http://www.houkgallery.com/leibovitz-women/leibovitz.html (http://www.houkgallery.com/leibovitz-women/leibovitz.html)
I suppose that depends on what her intent was with these. I find they create a mild sense of revulsion and are vaguely disturbing. That's my emotional response, and if she was going for something like that, then they worked on me. (However, I must admit it is a bit hard to tell looking at something barely larger than a postage stamp.)
-
Actually, most of of the opposition to her work in this thread insists on mentioning her success and her proximity to celebrity...
I personally don't like Leibowitz's work, especially the portraits. I always get the feeling when looking at her pictures that she is more kind of photographing herself than her subjects.
-
Actually, most of of the opposition to her work in this thread insists on mentioning her success and her proximity to celebrity...
But that's the point.
Her success is due to her subject matter which is over managed, over marketed and over hyped celebrity. The saying "if you want to be a famous photographer, photograph famous people" applies.
However that does not make the work great, just over managed, over marketed and over hyped.
-
But that's the point.
Her success is due to her subject matter which is over managed, over marketed and over hyped celebrity. The saying "if you want to be a famous photographer, photograph famous people" applies.
However that does not make the work great, just over managed, over marketed and over hyped.
I think all of that is true, but I do think that she was excellent at what she did do earlier in her career; that´s why I think that the point came for her where she felt she needed to try more than music, where she was drawn into fashion and movie people etc. and even that, from the little I know, seemed to be fine, just as long as a commercial style was adhered to, unlike with this set of nudes which looks to me to be a sort of statement flying in the face of any beauty that might have been associated with her work. And for me, again, it just doesn´t work. Nada mas.
Rob C
-
...
-
Who would like the rights, all rights, to Leibowitz's work? According to this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/feb/24/annie-leibovitz-art-pawn) and this article (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/leibovitz-pawns-her-lifes-work-to-raise-16m-1631354.html) she's trying to raise money by using her artwork as collateral. If she defaults on the loan, she loses all rights to certain works.
Regardless of what you think of her work, this is sad news.
-
Regardless of what you think of her work, this is sad news.
Hmm: in these straitened times, I find it hard to feel too sorry for someone who has raised mortgages on several grand-sounding houses - most ordinary people are managing annually on a tiny fraction of her bills just for "a lighting company and stylist - about $700,000", in just the one modest property
But sad to have to pawn one's life's work, indeed, however feckless, extravagant or ill-advised financially.
-
Yes we have, jjj. We are both old enough to know that tastes can vary wildly. There's sometimes no accounting for taste. What I'm interested in is learning why something I find totally uninteresting, might actually be a valuable comment on something.
You have failed in your above post to inform us (or anyone else) why you think those nudes by Annie Leibovitz are interesting. Your response is no more than an ad hominem attack.
Someone posts images that they think are the some of the best stuff AL has produced, you think they are awful. Fundamentally it's personal taste that is at issue here. And your reply above where you say 'there is sometimes no accounting for taste', reinforces my point you think other's taste is not so good as your own. Everyone thinks they have good taste. I simply think people have different tastes and 'good' taste is an arbitrary concept. So my post was not ad hominen as it was directly about the argument itself.
-
Futt Futt, again you jump to conclusions about the desires of another. I am, if anything, less interrested in erotic images than I have ever been, but if you wish to include eroticism (implied by the suggestion of magazines) then Mz L fails utterly to produce it, by my measurements, and fails as utterly to provide any alternative emotional connect for me other than one of revulsion (of the images, not of herself).
If you read post more carefully, you would have realised the magazine comment was a tongue in cheek one, regarding Ray's post not yours.
Should one wish to do nudes, then if not a celebration of beauty, what do we have - its opposite? Scenes from an abattoir come to mind in this instance. Quite seriously though, and not wishing to score points at all, what can be the purpose of doing nudes unless to create beauty?
Well that's a closed minded view and exactly why I pointed out people have different tastes. Plus this is exactly why you come across like a fuddy duddy and old fashioned. Some people like that sort of image, some don't. Personally, traditional glamour photography is something I find very boring/cheesy. Yet others love it. You seem to like 'pretty' [for lack of a better word] or traditional glamour imagery when it comes to naked women - nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with liking different stuff.
I like them as photographs, the fact that there is a naked female in them is not that relevant really.
Can it be the buzz of the presence of a naked person when you are, presumably, not naked too? Is the buzz to do with physical presence and a sense of sexual power over another? Is it a need simply to look at a naked other? Of Ms L´s sexuality I know little other than what is implied in her sister´s documentary, so perhaps it´s a sexual thing anyway, much as it often is between male photographer and female model on some levels.
Or simply different tastes. I like the shots, the person posting them liked them. You don't. I like gritty low key imagery, therefore there was a good chance I'd like the images more than if they were lit like a corporate mug shot, regardless of content
Do I assume those who photograph naked people always do so for sexual reasons? Certainly there will be an element of that at times, as people photograph what they like and many a famous artist has had cettainly had affairs with models, but I know a straight male photographer that specializes in males simply as almost everyone else photographs women and he want to do something different and a friend is filminga video on how to do fancy bondage rope tying, but had to get someone else in to do the rope stuff as it isn't his thing.
I didn't think there was anything to hint at with regard to AL's sexuality. Susan Sontag was her partner for many years until her recent death.
And the age references; what makes you think Ms Annie is some spring chicken? What makes you make the connection between age (your personal cutt-off number not mentioned) and having valid opinions? Do people older than you frighten you, shame you, embarrass you or just turn you off? What a mysterious concept hidden within there somewhere!
How old you are, Annie or myself is, is irrelevant. Actual age was not the point. I said you were like old people bemoaning the tastes of the young, who only make themselves look foolish in doing so. Particularly when they themselves wore clothes/listened to music their elders in their turn disapproved of. I am probably unusual in being unimpressed with today's music and fashion, because it is all a unimaginative rehash of stuff that went before, rather than trying to be different from the past. I like the shock of the new.
Speaking about music..
Music? How far back does your taste go? I could have given you a run for your money with jazz, vintages New Orleans, Chicago, St Louis etc. through r´n´b and r´n´r and diversions into swing but what would that prove, other than I care little for much that happened post Stones, as I think you once declared - or was it post Beatles? Much the same time, anyway. But still eff-all to do with that series of abysmal naked corpses which is where we came in.
I have plenty of music from the 20's if we are talking 3-4 minute songs, earlier for orchestral stuff and alsonew stuff from today and from the years inbetween too. BTW I spend a lot of time in environments where Swing is the only music to be heard, as I do swing/Lindy dancing and that is not the Las Vegas Lounge stuff that many people erroneously describe as swing music and where you seemed to place it in your musical timeline.
Saying there was no decent music after a certain time simply dates you and says nothing about you 'superior' taste and is everything to do with your dislike of the images, as it's the same thing. People tend not to like music that came after their youth as it wa never as good as in their day, you seem to be the same with more contempary imagery. You simply come across as very old fashioned and non mainstream/traditional things do not appear to be to your taste, which is fine.
Interestingly all the music you list you like was shocking in it's time, yet now it's all so very acceptable and quotidian. Just as more recent punk style tunes or radical electronica from the Eighties from times gone by are now to be heard whilst on hold waiting for customer services to answer phone. Or the shocking impressionist paintings are now seen as bit twee or ballet being seen as a bit fuddy duddy, rather than the place where radical art and ideas were first seen. Times and tastes change, some people don't.
-
Ah Futt Futt, the interminable wheel once set in motion just keeps on rollin´...
Ciao
Rob C
-
Someone posts images that they think are the some of the best stuff AL has produced, you think they are awful. Fundamentally it's personal taste that is at issue here. And your reply above where you say 'there is sometimes no accounting for taste', reinforces my point you think other's taste is not so good as your own. Everyone thinks they have good taste. I simply think people have different tastes and 'good' taste is an arbitrary concept. So my post was not ad hominen as it was directly about the argument itself.
JJJ,
No, it's not personal taste which is at issue here. It's obvious to everyone above a certain age that tastes differ. There no point in bringing this into the argument, You are just stating the obvious,
The only interesting issue here is why you like or dislike, or are indifferent to a particular photo.
I happen to be indifferent to the nude shots from Annie Leibowitz. I don't particularly hate them. I just think they are dull and lifeless and simply uninteresting.
My reasons are, the lighting is deadeningly poor and the eroticism is nonexistent. That's my view. Rob used the metaphor of dead meat. I suggested that perhaps Annie's brief was to produce a seies of nudes which are literally stripped of all eroticism. If that was her goal, she has succeeded. Perhaps that's all that counts. A master photographer at work, using her skills to produce the desired result.
However, it's my view in general that the 'nude' is an erotic subject, just as a sunset is a spectacular display (to some degree) of colorful red hues.
There might be something to say for stripping the nude of all eroticism. Can you articulate it?
-
JJJ,
No, it's not personal taste which is at issue here.
It's obvious to everyone above a certain age that tastes differ. There no point in bringing this into the argument, You are just stating the obvious,
It so obviously is the fact that tastes differ, that is the nub of the discusion. And yet you are still completely ignoring that it is indeed taste that is the issue here.
The only interesting issue here is why you like or dislike, or are indifferent to a particular photo.
I happen to be indifferent to the nude shots from Annie Leibowitz. I don't particularly hate them. I just think they are dull and lifeless and simply uninteresting.
But others really like them. As they are to their taste.
My reasons are, the lighting is deadeningly poor and the eroticism is nonexistent. That's my view.
And you are now simply post rationalising why they are not to your taste. Personally I like that sort of lighting and not everyone thinks nudes have to be erotic. An image can simply be nice/attractive/beautiful...etc
Rob used the metaphor of dead meat. I suggested that perhaps Annie's brief was to produce a seies of nudes which are literally stripped of all eroticism. If that was her goal, she has succeeded. Perhaps that's all that counts. A master photographer at work, using her skills to produce the desired result.
If that's what was intended, the pictures are a complete success. We don't know the intentions, so cannot really say for sure, so may have wanted them to be erotic and if AL finds nudes like that sexy, then they are a success.
This is why I find a lot of conjecture about artist's work somewhat risible as the comments that are usually forthcoming say far more about the critic, than the artist as they cannot see past their biased world view.
However, it's my view in general that the 'nude' is an erotic subject, just as a sunset is a spectacular display (to some degree) of colorful red hues.
Seeing as some people find feet erotic, some find boobs a turn on, what is erotic will depend entirely on the viewer and their tastes. It is completely subjective. Neither right nor wrong. You think nudes are/should be erotic. That's just your view. I've done nude photography and despite having a attractive naked body in front of me, it's simply not an erotic experience.
You are starting to sound worryingly to sound like a GWC - that's a Guy With Camera. It's a term used to describe men who use a camera to photograph naked women, just to see them naked.
Maybe you've just spent too much time photographing priapic rock formations!?
There might be something to say for stripping the nude of all eroticism. Can you articulate it?
As I've just said, eroticism depends on your taste. If you like PVC, then a nude shot will be less erotic than one of a PVC clad person. I find Page 3 photos completely unerotic, they are very dull with bland lighting, they are simply topless shots of a pretty young thing, yet somehow manage [my mind] to make them unerotic and bland. Much like a nude beach is not exactly erotic despite everyone being naked - it's made the naked body safe and unexciting. And regarding Page three and related photography - one of the least sexy things I can imagine is a naked women draped over a car/motorbike/boat/garden shed/lawnmover... in a sad attempt to make something boring, a bit more interesting.
Eroticism of an image is dependent entirely on who is viewing it.
-
Futt Futt
I think you are absolutely right about shooting nudes not being erotic. That´s what I found, and for a simple reason: I was trying to do work that would keep my client happy and myself with a repeat calendar. There is little less erotic to me than the thought of earning my living.
Now, were I simply your GWC, then I might well have found the nude to be an erotic experience. Sadly, I was never in the position of doing anything like that for free and so can neither confirm nor deny the idea. On balance, though, I think it would certainly lend itself to a little bit of tumescence, but as that can come for free (if you are still young) just by sitting in a bus on bumpy city roads, then having to go through the preamble of chatting somebody into taking off their kit seems hardly worth the candle. As for hiring a professional model to avoid the chatting up part, the bus ride is cheaper.
Rob C
-
I think you are absolutely right about shooting nudes not being erotic. That´s what I found, and for a simple reason: I was trying to do work that would keep my client happy and myself with a repeat calendar. There is little less erotic to me than the thought of earning my living.
On the other hand a man earning money is pretty erotic to some women!
-
On the other hand a man earning money is pretty erotic to some women!
NOW you tell me!
Rob C
-
It so obviously is the fact that tastes differ, that is the nub of the discusion. And yet you are still completely ignoring that it is indeed taste that is the issue here.
Taste is an issue here, as it is everywhere. Taste is no more of an issue here than it is when discussing any photograph or painting.
I'm not ignoring the fact that taste is an issue here. I'm simply assuming that it cannot be otherwise. Perhaps you could give me an example of a preference, liking or disliking of any photo or painting that is not a matter of taste, so we know where we stand.
Edit: In order not to waste everyone's time, it's understood we talking about 'artistic taste' here (or taste about artistic matters) and not taste about the artistic merit of scientific images, the sole purpose of which is to provide data and information.
-
I wrote this a few years ago for a post in APUG about this type of photography. I'm obviously not a writer.
Everyone knows the stories of Ansel Adams and how he camped out for hours and days to get the incredible photographs that he is famous for.
However, there is a hot new photographer named Ansel Liebowitz doing the same type of work. He has recently been commissioned by Landscape Incorporated to produce the covers for the magazine called Terra Faire.
The progression of this cover shot is as follows:
Day 1. Executive meeting in New York with editor, photo editor, art director, location director, 2 writers, Ansel Liebowitz and his assistant , the stylist, and two interns. The discussion, the cover for May, three months away. Apparently there is a movie coming out on May 5th that features a lot of locations shots in and around the Sierras.
Day 2. Meeting with Ansel, his four assistants, stylist, art director, location director and 2 location scouts and 2 interns. Find the perfect location, check on snow, moon location, time of day etc and report back to Ansel by early next week.
Day 9. Meeting. Same group as day 2. Location scouts report that they have helicoptered around the area and have 3 locations that could be perfect. They produce photographs showing the entire area and included are the position of the sun, moon and at what times. Snow may be a problem.
Day 11. Meeting. Same group. Location is decided upon. Two assistants are sent to the area to camp out and report back when conditions are perfect. The other assistant is sent to round up rental equipment for the shoot. The location manager is sent to arrange for transportation air and ground, for Ansel and his group as well as for equipment, for the day the shoot is decided upon.
Day 19. Sierras. Weather is perfect.
Using their satellite phone the assistants contact New York. The shoot is set for 5pm. The equipment has arrived and has been set up. Ansel jumps in a limo and heads to the private airport. After a grueling 4 hour flight which he sleeps through aboard the company jet, he arrives at the nearest airport, and jumps into a helicopter to take him 30 miles to the staging area.
A Hummer picks him up and then deposits him at the site at exactly 4:30 PM. Unfortunately the driver, not used to the slick roads, fails to stop in time and runs smack dab right into the catering truck. The doughnuts are OK but the capiccino machine and one intern is ruined. Oh well.
Luckily the set decorator arrived yesterday, in time to hire 3 local Sikorskys to drop 500 tons of fresh snow in patchy areas to even out the flats before the mountains. The valley floor is alive with the rhymthic whine of the six semi trailer generator trucks pumping power to the 126 strategically placed strobes filling the valley with light as the assistants tweak the set up working on polaroids. Ansel, wearing his new trumpeter swan down jacket jumps out of the Hummer and looks at the polaroids and yes it's perfect.
He trips the shutter and just to be sure trips it twenty more times as his dutiful assistants skillfully switch the film holders in and out. The shoot had to be interrupted once, while one of his assistants shot a pesky bear cub that kept edging into the shot. But right on schedule, ten minutes later, Ansel is back in the Hummer heading for the helicopter to take him to the airport. He has a gallery opening to attend later tonight.
Day 45. Executive meeting New York. Editor, photoeditor art director,
2 writers, Ansel Liebowitz and his assistant, 1 intern. Ansel, freshly tanned, back from the Bahamas, looks over the pictures which have been photoshopped and printed. They naturally, are admired all around. Ansel - another perfect shoot.
Day 90. The magazine hits the newstands to rave reviews and Ansel has done it again.
Another book is in the works. Just in time for Christmas.
Michael
Sorry way too true to be funny!
Ok, Ok...too true and very funny!
-
The doughnuts are OK but the capiccino machine and one intern is ruined.
That line right there is worth the price of admission!
-
The original set of images.
If anyone is still interested, the bulk of this set of images is to be found in the Pirelli 2000 Calendar which is available for viewing at the eponymous site. There is a further image from this set printed on page 64 of the March/April 2000 edition of American Photo. Nothing improves at larger repro. Similar editorial comment is made in the magazine, so not a lot of opinion changed in eight or nine years...
And yes, only two are models and the rest variations on the celeb theme.
Rob C
-
Now I just got a belated Hanukkah present, a copy of her newest book "At Work."
I cannot recommend this book strongly enough. She takes one or two of her images, and spends a few paragraphs or pages discusses them with us (the reader). Sometimes it's just about the subject, or the setting, but also the image: composition, gear (digital and film, btw), or lighting. There's even a kind of FAQ as well. The book is really targeted at fellow photographers.
I've read all her books and watched the documentary. Like some of her work, and would not call myself a fan. But after reading this book, I have a rather different impression of her and her work. It appeared to be based on interview transcripts. Her sincerity, honesty, generosity and vulnerability all seem to come through, and without sounding artsy. Rarely found in a photo book, and tells me a lot more about her and her work than her other books.
The book covers her career evolution, and range of work. It certainly sheds light (from her perspective) on some of the images critiqued in this thread. (I was dumb founded to learn that some images were stitched!)
-
I too have her "At Work" book. It was sort of an impulse buy but boy I am glad that I purchased it.
I haven't chugged my way through the entire book yet but it is definitely a good read thus far.
-
Sowaddyaknow! Yesterday I bought the Annie book: Annie Leibovitz, Vida de una fotógrafa, 1990-2005, edited by Mark Holborn, which ties up neatly with her sister's film Life through a Lens. At over €50, just as well it does! I now have the problem of trying to find a home for it somewhere where it won't bring a shelf crashing down. Just as well it ain't Sumo.
Have I solved her debt problems now?
Rob C
-
So did she actually shoot these or did she have the assistants set up everything and she walked in and clicked the shutter. I have seen these shoots myself on set movies and shows and saw this happen.
Not to mention the assistants said this happens all the time. I wonder did she hire a ghost writer. JP
-
So did she actually shoot these or did she have the assistants set up everything and she walked in and clicked the shutter. I have seen these shoots myself on set movies and shows and saw this happen.
Not to mention the assistants said this happens all the time. I wonder did she hire a ghost writer. JP
Having now looked at the book in two separate goes, I am left wondering about the ease which which I have been parted with my dough.
Far from resembling much that was in the film, which was quite an interesting coverage of her work with the Stones, Vogue etc., this book is a sentimental journey into her private life and has not a heap of her commercial work that I think even looks great. I can only look at so many pics of her Susan Sontag, her maw and paw, her sisters and kids and stuff like that.
A wasted opportunity for her and a dumb buy for me.
Rob C
-
A wasted opportunity for her and a dumb buy for me.
Same victim's impact statement here. And to me her exhibition in the Brooklyn Museum was only partially interesting. Her landscapes are not my cup of tea.
-
I imagine that the documentary of which you speak is the one conducted in a car by her sister? That it´s easy to become a photographer when your early life is already trained to perceive the world in a frame because you have seen it already mainly through the frame of a car window?
Enjoy your meeting and make a list of questions!
Rob C
Now I understand why shooting and framing my shots comes easy to me..... my dad was a truck driver and I spend a large par of my childhood vacations sitting in the passenger seat of my dads 18wheeler! LOL