Annie Leibovitz

jonmon6691 · Jan 15, 2023

I've watched a bunch of videos on youtube about Annie Leibovitz that show her commercial work and it's not that inspiring tbh. Huge crews, lots of artificial elements, etc. But shes the one making $$$ from Vogue covers, none of the people in this thread can say that.

But if you want to see her more personal work, check out her book "Women" https://www.powells.com/book/women-9780375500206 There are dozens of portraits in there that I found profoundly moving, especially "Barbara Anne Smith", and "Josephine Barlow". Her talent isn't in perfect zone system landscapes, but capturing who someone is on a page

Richard Man · Jan 15, 2023

Anne Leibovitz has tens, maybe even hundreds of photos that will be treasured 50 years, 100 years from now.

While most of our treasured "analogue negatives", including ones from all the critics, will have turned to mush in some garbage dump somewhere.

ajd · Jan 15, 2023

Forgetting about the Queens photo for a minute and getting back both OP,s question I too am not really that impressed with AL's work to a point. Yes big crews etc and lots of planning are part of her work. mSeveral years ago `I found a magazine from the early 70s in a bookstore and bechance her early work was in the same publication as Mary Ellen Mark. I did prefer the latter and still do. Every one is different.

Sirius Glass · Jan 15, 2023

ajd said:
Forgetting about the Queens photo for a minute and getting back both OP,s question I too am not really that impressed with AL's work to a point. Yes big crews etc and lots of planning are part of her work. mSeveral years ago `I found a magazine from the early 70s in a bookstore and bechance her early work was in the same publication as Mary Ellen Mark. I did prefer the latter and still do. Every one is different.

Welcome to ~~APUG~~ Photrio!!

cliveh · Jan 15, 2023

Well I don't think good photography is about big crews, big bands and big sets, but silent vision for the moment you press the shutter. But that is just my opinion.

Radost · Jan 15, 2023

Richard Man said:
Anne Leibovitz has tens, maybe even hundreds of photos that will be treasured 50 years, 100 years from now.

While most of our treasured "analogue negatives", including ones from all the critics, will have turned to mush in some garbage dump somewhere.

YEA the Zelensky shoot will be studied in schools.

cowanw · Jan 15, 2023

Cholentpot said:
A bit of a stretch don't you think? There are similarities but the Queen photo looks like a badly rendered B flick zombie movie.

If you haven"t googled images and Thomas Gainsborough, then you may not be as informed as you should be, but there is a historical relationship here with the Crown and this image you should acknowledge.
Having said that even Leibovitz does not know the difference between Garter robes and an Admiral's boat cloak.

Nokton48 · Jan 15, 2023

I learned of her through the Peterson's Book of her early stuff back in the '70's. My wife bought me her book as an XMAS present years ago and it was enjoyable. We went to the Wexner Center at OSU (always wanted to see inside since it was in Architectural Record), and there were hundreds of mural sized photos on display. Yes we were impressed!

Cholentpot · Jan 15, 2023

cowanw said:
If you haven"t googled images and Thomas Gainsborough, then you may not be as informed as you should be, but there is a historical relationship here with the Crown and this image you should acknowledge.
Having said that even Leibovitz does not know the difference between Garter robes and an Admiral's boat cloak.

You think she did justice to Gainsborough with that photo?

sunbeamland · Jan 15, 2023

These are two of my favorite. I was fortunate enough to meet her when I was at RIT. She’s passionate and the real deal.

Pieter12 · Jan 15, 2023

cliveh said:
Well I don't think good photography is about big crews, big bands and big sets, but silent vision for the moment you press the shutter. But that is just my opinion.

Once again, your opinion. The size of the crew or the photo budget doesn't make or break a photo, but when it is necessary for the photographer's vision it can make a big difference. You seem to have a very narrow definition of what good photography is and I sincerely hope that is what you strive for and achieve.

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 15, 2023

MattKing said:
The colour is terrible - in the internet representations.

Picky. Picky. It's the diamonds, pearls and fur that count.

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 15, 2023

cliveh said:
When I was younger I thought the National Portrait Gallery was about great portraits. However, it is about famous people and perhaps where her pictures fit in.

We're going to London in May. Is the British Museum the best to visit? I could see art anywhere like portraits and paintings. But I assume this museum has other stuff as well like from the British Empire?

Sirius Glass · Jan 15, 2023

Alan Edward Klein said:
We're going to London in May. Is the British Museum the best to visit? I could see art anywhere like portraits and paintings. But I assume this museum has other stuff as well like from the British Empire?

Art is not in the British Museum except for the stolen so called Elgin Marbles.

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 15, 2023

Sirius Glass said:
Art is not in the British Museum except for the stolen so called Elgin Marbles.

When my grandmother died, my aunt took all the good stuff from her house leaving nothing for the rest of the relatives. There was no will. When I mentioned it in passing to my business attorney asking what happens in a situation like that, he said whoever gets there first gets to keep the loot.

mrosenlof · Jan 15, 2023

There is art in the British Museum, but much is ancient, and mostly sculpture. The last time I was there, 2013, I had a foot injury and sat on a bench near Egyptian sculpture while my wife and daughter saw much more. The people watching was pretty good. I believe the Rosetta Stone is still there. In 1998 you could still touch the Rosetta Stone!

I have enjoyed my time spent at the National Portrait Gallery, both in London and in DC.

BrianShaw · Jan 15, 2023

Alan Edward Klein said:
We're going to London in May. Is the British Museum the best to visit? I could see art anywhere like portraits and paintings. But I assume this museum has other stuff as well like from the British Empire?

Yes. Absolutely! Pay no nevermind to the ignorant ~~moronic~~ nonsense that it’s not worth visiting.

And I second the comment on visiting National Portrait Gallery, both London and DC.

Pieter12 · Jan 15, 2023

Alan Edward Klein said:
We're going to London in May. Is the British Museum the best to visit? I could see art anywhere like portraits and paintings. But I assume this museum has other stuff as well like from the British Empire?

Do some research. Guide books from the library. The internet (whodda thought!).

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 15, 2023

Pieter12 said:
Do some research. Guide books from the library. The internet (whodda thought!).

I signed up for their newsletter. I'll be there when they have a new exhibit starting in May:

Luxury and power
Persia to Greece

Luxury and power: Persia to Greece

Drawing on dazzling objects, this exhibition explores how luxury shaped the political landscape of Eurasia in the first millennium BC.

www.britishmuseum.org

Mike Lopez · Jan 15, 2023

mrosenlof said:
I believe the Rosetta Stone is still there.

Indeed it is.

Tons of art in that place (literally!), although much of it was stolen, as others have noted.

Sirius Glass · Jan 15, 2023

Sirius Glass said:
Art is not in the British Museum except for the stolen so called Elgin Marbles.

BrianShaw said:
Yes. Absolutely! Pay no nevermind to the ignorant ~~moronic~~ nonsense that it’s not worth visiting.

And I second the comment on visiting National Portrait Gallery, both London and DC.

I did not say that the British Museum was no worth visiting. It is worth visiting, but if one in interested in collections of art, there are better places to go in London.

Cholentpot · Jan 15, 2023

Mike Lopez said:
Indeed it is.

Tons of art in that place (literally!), although much of it was stolen, as others have noted.

Or it would have been broken up and sold to dishonest dealers and locked away in some backrooms never to be seen by the public.

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 16, 2023

Sirius Glass said:
I did not say that the British Museum was no worth visiting. It is worth visiting, but if one in interested in collections of art, there are better places to go in London.

Where?

Alan Edward Klein · Jan 16, 2023

Cholentpot said:
Or it would have been broken up and sold to dishonest dealers and locked away in some backrooms never to be seen by the public.

It was nice of the British to protect it for the rightful owners all these years from all those thieves and plunderers.

mrosenlof · Jan 16, 2023

I have been to the Tate Modern, Tate (not Modern), and Natl. Portrait Gallery. I have not made it to the Victoria & Albert, but hear it's a good choice. There are certainly others. The British Library has some exceptional exhibits and the Natural History Museum is a good one.

Annie Leibovitz

Attachments

Luxury and power Persia to Greece​

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Luxury and power
Persia to Greece