Is traditional fashion photography finished?

[Isaac]

[Nick Knight] says "I've argued strongly for the last ten years or more that we have to say photography is finished − it isn't the medium we use anymore."

[Johnny_Johnson]

Has that guy been talking to Cooter?

Cya,
Johnny

[Alan Klein]

His argument is that the internet and social media is effecting fashion photography. Why not?   Seems reasonable as it's effected so many other things.  Look what's its done to newspapers, magazines, booksellers, TV, stores, the Yellow pages, military and industrial spying, national defense, how you shop, social relations, and a million other things.   

[Alan Klein]

Oh. Viewing photos.

[Isaac]

I didn't image the Windows 8.1 Lock Screen would change how I viewed my photos, but that's probably how I see most of them now.

[Rob C]

Relieved I'm long out of it; would be a helluva time to be young, seeing your dreams go up in the smoke of a cellphone.

In the case of Nick K, he's ever a great, long-established, internationally rated top photographer, and that is what he brings to the party, regardless of what he uses. Thing is, at his altitude, things still work well enough to bring home a little more than the basic bacon. It won't be as pretty for the rest of the photo-tribe who always had a major fight on their hands even to survive. If you thought digital was a threat bad enough, I fear you ain't seen nuttin' yet.

Rob C

[Iluvmycam]

 I can't say. I'm not a fashion photog, I'm a social documentary photog. But I can say this about my own area of expertise as it relates to the article.

In the 1970’s it was relatively easy to get inside a person’s home to document their lives. My MO was to ‘meet on the street and shoot at the home.’ I would never know what I would find inside their house. I got some of my best photos that way.

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691523-hakenkreuz-in-a-dress

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691520-babs

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691521-crazy

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691525-traveling-transvestite

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691527-captain-of-wall-street-90014

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691541-his-perfect-woman


Nowadays this way of shooting is very tough to do. For the last year and a half I have had no luck with getting people that interest me to let me into their homes. I may approach someone and offer free photos. But with everyone fondling their camera phone cameras and they all seem to own a $50 ink jet printer from Walmart…they don’t see a need for allowing me inside their house to shoot them.

I guess a curator I spoke with this year sums up the state of affairs with photography. As he declined my offer of a donation of photos to his collection, he told me…“Please, I don’t need any more photographs...the world is just polluted with them.”

But…being an old street shooter from 44 years ago, that is where I put my effort nowadays. I’ve adopted HDR hyper real as my choice for street work. So, whether people let me in or not…one way or another… I get the pix.

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/693479-the-strutters

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/693481-yankee-doodle-dandy

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/693488-pole-dancer-ross-county-ohio

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/721151-the-lost-princess

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/750238-cover-photo-from-bikers-mardi-gras-limited-edition-artists-book-by-daniel-d-teoli-jr

[Justinr]

I can't say. I'm not a fashion photog, I'm a social documentary photog. But I can say this about my own area of expertise as it relates to the article.

In the 1970’s it was relatively easy to get inside a person’s home to document their lives. My MO was to ‘meet on the street and shoot at the home.’ I would never know what I would find inside their house. I got some of my best photos that way.

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691523-hakenkreuz-in-a-dress

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691520-babs

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691521-crazy

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691525-traveling-transvestite

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691527-captain-of-wall-street-90014

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/691541-his-perfect-woman


Nowadays this way of shooting is very tough to do. For the last year and a half I have had no luck with getting people that interest me to let me into their homes. I may approach someone and offer free photos. But with everyone fondling their camera phone cameras and they all seem to own a $50 ink jet printer from Walmart…they don’t see a need for allowing me inside their house to shoot them.

I guess a curator I spoke with this year sums up the state of affairs with photography. As he declined my offer of a donation of photos to his collection, he told me…“Please, I don’t need any more photographs...the world is just polluted with them.”

But…being an old street shooter from 44 years ago, that is where I put my effort nowadays. I’ve adopted HDR hyper real as my choice for street work. So, whether people let me in or not…one way or another… I get the pix.

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/693479-the-strutters

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/693481-yankee-doodle-dandy

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/693488-pole-dancer-ross-county-ohio

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/721151-the-lost-princess

http://www.artslant.com/lon/works/show/750238-cover-photo-from-bikers-mardi-gras-limited-edition-artists-book-by-daniel-d-teoli-jr

You have a point. Go back ten even five years and people were quite thrilled to have their photo taken for a paper or magazine but now most don't want to know or certainly won't make any effort to compose themselves for a shot. Same as the last few of weddings I did, guests and relatives just seem to disappear when the group photos are being taken rather than willingly join in, at best, or simply consider it a necessary chore, at worse.

[Rob C]

Guest vanish because they don't want to be implicated in future print sales!

Who needs prints for money when you get your own free?

Rob C

[Ben Rubinstein]

Relieved I'm long out of it; would be a helluva time to be young, seeing your dreams go up in the smoke of a cellphone.

What a great line!

[Alan Klein]

...Same as the last few of weddings I did, guests and relatives just seem to disappear when the group photos are being taken rather than willingly join in, at best, or simply consider it a necessary chore, at worse.

My experience as a "user" of these services was different.  My daughter got married a year ago.  There were both videographers and photographers (different companies my daughter and son-in-law checked into and selected.  They seem to work together pretty well.  Both teams were very professional.  No way could the results be the same with guests taking pictures for the couple.  It was not cheap at all.  If photographers are dropping their pants to get work, it didn't happen in my case.  Maybe Long Island and NYC is different then the rest of the country.

The guests were all very helpful when the many set group shots were done.   Albums went to the main family members.  The pictures were posted to purchase for guests.  Don't know if or who purchased any.  Of course, because of the digital interet age, this is something that was not done in the past.   The only thing that I see changed in weddings I went to years ago before digital, is that videography has been added.   So while jobs may have been lost for photographers, videography has added jobs.  I don't know the net gain or loss and will assume that you're correct about the net being a loss.   Are there any figures that reflect on this?

[jjj]

[Nick Knight] says "I've argued strongly for the last ten years or more that we have to say photography is finished − it isn't the medium we use anymore."

Annoyingly, you cannot view BBC Worldwide from within the UK.
Nick Knight is an amazing photographer, though his recent video for Kanye West is bizarrely dreadful, with the only good thing being the sends ups of it's awfulness.

[elliot_n]

Nick Knight on 'fashion film':

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOBZMS9Bhr0

[jjj]

Ta for that link. NK always has a special eye for visuals and his work pre-photoshop let alone pre-digital was pushing boundaries beyond what many do now.

[Rob C]

He is certainly eloquent and unhesitating in his delivery, but I think there's more than a little hypocrisy. Unless I misunderstood him, he is suggesting that 'old' fashion photography was somehow elitist (and ¡f so, why not? If you can blow over a grand on a blouse...) and that was morally and artistically wrong - in his view - but that 'fashion film' is not. Really? So it's easier/cheaper to set up a film/video suite than a simple studio and darkroom as I did? The shooting space he enjoys is somehow an egalitarian gesture? Come on now, as Dylan might have sung.

All that's different, then, is the same guy shooting motion rather than stills.

And don't forget, the website is his, not that of some magazine trying to survive... so there is no lack of venue for his work.

But, none of the above denies him any of his glory as a photographer/maker of images; he's terrific.

Rob C

[jjj]

I didn't get a sense of any elitist talk from him in that video about photography. It was more about how photography was of a time in fashion and that time may be passing.
It should also be noted that he started his career with ID magazine which was a reaction against elitist Vogue type fashion. Plus he's championed diversity in fashion using disabled and plus sized models and generally likes to challenge traditional ideals of beauty.

[Rob C]

I didn't get a sense of any elitist talk from him in that video about photography. It was more about how photography was of a time in fashion and that time may be passing.
It should also be noted that he started his career with ID magazine which was a reaction against elitist Vogue type fashion. Plus he's championed diversity in fashion using disabled and plus sized models and generally likes to challenge traditional ideals of beauty.

How can this be? The stuff Vogue used to feature in editorial, and its punters advertise too, was hardly aimed at any average Jane. It was aimed at a specific upmarket niche, and if others outwith that smallish grouping got their kicks by being seen with the magazine, so much the better.

I can't see where he thinks the likes of Vogue and its advertising clients can go, if not print: does he really think all those rich women over 45 spend their time with computers?

I have no doubt that the downmarket mags will probably vanish, because without doubt, their market segment demographic does spend its time in cyberspace, in one way or the other.

Perhaps an eventual outcome will be that some bright spark comes up with a new form of medium that we don't yet know.

Rob C

[elliot_n]

I think the old and wealthy spend just as much time in cyberspace as the young and downtrodden. But I'm not sure if any of them have the patience for Nick Knight's 'fashion films'.

'You may skip this advertisement in 5 seconds.'

And you do.

[jjj]

NK's fashion films will be liked by the same sort of people who liked his photography I'd have thought. And I don't think his work was ever exactly aimed at the more conservative reader/viewer.

[jjj]

How can this be? The stuff Vogue used to feature in editorial, and its punters advertise too, was hardly aimed at any average Jane. It was aimed at a specific upmarket niche, and if others outwith that smallish grouping got their kicks by being seen with the magazine, so much the better.

As I said that was not where he worked. iD magazine was the anti-Vogue.

I have no doubt that the downmarket mags will probably vanish, because without doubt, their market segment demographic does spend its time in cyberspace, in one way or the other.

Uh, the supermarket magazines shelves here are groaning with the weight of 'downmarket' mags. So I wouldn't bet against them just yet.