Annie Leibovitz

[BrianShaw]

Where?

National Portrait Gallery, aforementioned.

Victoria and Albert.

For industrial art, Science Museum.

For literary art, British Library.

For funerary art, Westminster Abbey and Highgate Cemetery.

For culinary art, Rules.

For gemologogical art, the Crown Jewel collection at the Tower of London… although they may be currently in use.

And if you are fortunate, you might see Annie Leibovitz at one of these places.

 

[Cholentpot]

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

Judge the past by todays standards. Don't worry, we'll do it to you too in 30 years.

 

[Arthurwg]

She is great, often depicting women in a strong feminine presence.
Off coarse some don't like that.
Women make the best photographers.
View attachment 326661

Speaking of women photographers, how about Ruth Orkin? Not too shabby.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

We'll be seeing the Louvre in Paris so I think the British Museum is a good choice for London.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

National Portrait Gallery, aforementioned.

Victoria and Albert.

For industrial art, Science Museum.

For literary art, British Library.

For funerary art, Westminster Abbey and Highgate Cemetery.

For culinary art, Rules.

For gemologogical art, the Crown Jewel collection at the Tower of London… although they may be currently in use.

And if you are fortunate, you might see Annie Leibovitz at one of these places.

My wife should like the Tower of London artwork. Gee I hope the Queen didn't take them with her.

 

[cowanw]

You think she did justice to Gainsborough with that photo?

Thanks for responding in a positive way; it makes me want to converse with you
- and so...

If you google Thomas Gainsborough and images you will see many of his paintings which show darker blueish pale skinned portraits (after all he painted The Blue Boy) with brooding skies and natural backgrounds. From a colour tone point of view the Queen Photograph references them quite well (insofar as my computer screen deals with both paintings and photographs). I am sure the queen had many Gainsboroughs in her collection. This portrait was one of a collection of family portraits all done in the same style. So Leibovitz had a goal of finding commonality in this style.
Similarly Gainsborough would often produce singular images of unique and solitary female figures. Leibovitz sought to reference this. Few women were as unique, solitary, and powerful as the Queen.
The transposition of the background also references the common placement of individuals in a country background and additionally looks back to Cecil Beaton's Queen's coronation photos with the painted backdrop of Westminster abbey.Another Beaton reference is the use of Garter Robes. Although Leibovitz (in an interview) seems to be unaware of the difference, Beaton's portrait of the Queen in her Admiral's Boat Cloak is one of the best ever portrait's of the Queen and one of her favorites.
So did Leibovitz accomplish what she wanted with the portfolio of photographs, was the Queen happy with them, did they reference the past as well as presenting the present, does this show us something about the Queen? I would guess yes.
Do you like it? I would say no. You speak to the use of filters on an iPhone several times here. I conclude you think this photograph does not look like how you think a good photograph should look. That's fine; but referring to Post 17, I just don't think that is what criticism is about.

 

[warden]

Can someone point me to a good photograph by her? Because her images leave me cold.

Nixon's departure.

 

[miha]

 

[Sirius Glass]

Where?

Tate and the National Portrait Gallery for starters. A longer list was posted by @BrianShaw.

 

[Cholentpot]

Thanks for responding in a positive way; it makes me want to converse with you
- and so...

If you google Thomas Gainsborough and images you will see many of his paintings which show darker blueish pale skinned portraits (after all he painted The Blue Boy) with brooding skies and natural backgrounds. From a colour tone point of view the Queen Photograph references them quite well (insofar as my computer screen deals with both paintings and photographs). I am sure the queen had many Gainsboroughs in her collection. This portrait was one of a collection of family portraits all done in the same style. So Leibovitz had a goal of finding commonality in this style.
Similarly Gainsborough would often produce singular images of unique and solitary female figures. Leibovitz sought to reference this. Few women were as unique, solitary, and powerful as the Queen.
The transposition of the background also references the common placement of individuals in a country background and additionally looks back to Cecil Beaton's Queen's coronation photos with the painted backdrop of Westminster abbey.Another Beaton reference is the use of Garter Robes. Although Leibovitz (in an interview) seems to be unaware of the difference, Beaton's portrait of the Queen in her Admiral's Boat Cloak is one of the best ever portrait's of the Queen and one of her favorites.
So did Leibovitz accomplish what she wanted with the portfolio of photographs, was the Queen happy with them, did they reference the past as well as presenting the present, does this show us something about the Queen? I would guess yes.
Do you like it? I would say no. You speak to the use of filters on an iPhone several times here. I conclude you think this photograph does not look like how you think a good photograph should look. That's fine; but referring to Post 17, I just don't think that is what criticism is about.

Good explanation. I've learned something today.

Yes, I still don't think it looks like my idea of a great photo but to each their own.

Nixon's departure.

This kind of thing I can get behind. Having an eye for what others are overlooking. Everyone else is looking at the chopper but A.L. is looking elsewhere and making a statement. Excellent shot.

 

[Pieter12]

Everyone else is looking at the chopper but A.L. is looking elsewhere and making a statement. Excellent shot.

That is sort of how Liebowitz got her start. As a student at the San Francisco Art Institute, she managed to get an assignment to shoot an event for Rolling Stone Magazine. She found herself surrounded by other photographers shooting the stage, and turned around and shot the crowd. The magazine ran the photo.

Her portrait of Meryl Streep is one of my favorites. Ms Streep pulling her painted face out of shape, characterizing and charictaturing how malleable she is as an actress.



Also, Ms Liebowitz seems to often reference classic paintings in her work, such as this one of George Clooney with a broad wink at Gericault's The Raft of the Medusa.

 

[Cholentpot]

That is sort of how Liebowitz got her start. As a student at the San Francisco Art Institute, she managed to get an assignment to shoot an event for Rolling Stone Magazine. She found herself surrounded by other photographers shooting the stage, and turned around and shot the crowd. The magazine ran the photo.

Her portrait of Meryl Streep is one of my favorites. Ms Streep pulling her painted face out of shape, characterizing and charictaturing how malleable she is as an actress.

View attachment 326882

Also, Ms Liebowitz seems to often reference classic paintings in her work, such as this one of George Clooney with a broad wink at Gericault's The Raft of the Medusa.

View attachment 326883

View attachment 326884

So I'm not going out on a limb saying that I like her early grittier work over her later processed look.

That story of her shooting the crowd, that's the kind of thing I'd do instinctively. That resonates with me.

 

[Pieter12]

So I'm not going out on a limb saying that I like her early grittier work over her later processed look.

That story of her shooting the crowd, that's the kind of thing I'd do instinctively. That resonates with me.

Her earlier work is more journalistic, she moved on to portraits (more cover shots, more exposure and more money in that), which lead to commercial assignments with more production value, large crews and post-production. It's the evolution of one's career and style. In the commercial world it helps to keep one getting work and commanding higher fees, especially with today's onslaught of photographers. When Ms Liebowitz started out, only a small number of people had cameras and could produce a technically good shot. Now with automation and digital (not to mention smart phones) everyone has a camera that can produce a decent photo. Obviously, she has decades of experience, a clear vision and the skills to direct her subjects, but she needs to stay ahead of the pack. There are thousands of camera-wielding wannabes who would love to get some of the action.

 

[cliveh]

Nixon's departure.

Thanks, now that is what I would call a bloody good photograph. I change my opinion.

 

[Nokton48]

I always liked the one of Mick Jaggers tongue sticking out. It made the cover of her Peterson's Photographic book back in the seventies. She fixed focused her 180mm f2.8 Nikkor and rocked back and forth to try to keep him in focus. Quite a feat I did it recently with a Plaubel Makina and frolokin horses. Jagger wanted her "to be their Cartier Bresson". He's a shrewd Dude

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Her earlier work is more journalistic, she moved on to portraits (more cover shots, more exposure and more money in that), which lead to commercial assignments with more production value, large crews and post-production. It's the evolution of one's career and style. In the commercial world it helps to keep one getting work and commanding higher fees, especially with today's onslaught of photographers. When Ms Liebowitz started out, only a small number of people had cameras and could produce a technically good shot. Now with automation and digital (not to mention smart phones) everyone has a camera that can produce a decent photo. Obviously, she has decades of experience, a clear vision and the skills to direct her subjects, but she needs to stay ahead of the pack. There are thousands of camera-wielding wannabes who would love to get some of the action.

Having a name and/or a referral, to get you in the door is worth gold when you're trying to get business. Any business. Sending a resume just doesn't do it.

 

[jtk]

Having a name and/or a referral, to get you in the door is worth gold when you're trying to get business. Any business. Sending a resume just doesn't do it.

She didn't just "get in the door"...she worked hard, pounded lots of doors, and Rolling Stone wasn't the biggest of the doors she could have gotten into. It was owned by the recent editor of San Francisco State College's student newspaper, which as a startup had been financed by his mother.

Also, it's worth noting that she became a big name about the same time as her wife, the late Susan Sontag

 

[jtk]

Her earlier work is more journalistic, she moved on to portraits (more cover shots, more exposure and more money in that), which lead to commercial assignments with more production value, large crews and post-production. It's the evolution of one's career and style. In the commercial world it helps to keep one getting work and commanding higher fees, especially with today's onslaught of photographers. When Ms Liebowitz started out, only a small number of people had cameras and could produce a technically good shot. Now with automation and digital (not to mention smart phones) everyone has a camera that can produce a decent photo. Obviously, she has decades of experience, a clear vision and the skills to direct her subjects, but she needs to stay ahead of the pack. There are thousands of camera-wielding wannabes who would love to get some of the action.

Many of her peers were shooting rock stars and concerts. It was San Francisco, after all, and everybody who counts was performing there. Lots of competition. And I think she did use a Nikkormat, a nearly-semi-auto slr.

Nikkormat FTn Review - Definitely Quirky, but also a Rock Solid Camera

The Nikkormat FTn is quirky, it’s impossible to deny that, but I’m definitely going to enjoy using it for a little longer.

www.35mmc.com

 

[Nokton48]

If I remember correctly, she started with SRT101 Minoltas. Then She switched to Nikon F's according to the Peterson's biography from the Seventies. When I saw her mural sized B&W's in a prestigious art setting, there were a lot of Minolta Shots. Of course she prolly had a Nikkormat too! All great stuff

 

[jtk]

Nokton, you're probably correct about camera.. What is Peterson's bio? I remember quite a few photographers from that era...all hard-working, all "connected" in various ways. She established herself the hard way. San Francisco was tougher than New York City, according to the former New York pros I knew. The "big names" made their $$, bought their warehouse studios, and retired young. Annie went her own path. That's what I generally remember. I did OK but gravitated toward graphic design, moved to Calistoga, and sold most of my equipment. Different strokes. Lots of wannabes were jealous of AL's success when she was young...and still are.

 

[faberryman]

Annie Liebovitz made some really great photographs and some really lousy real estate investments.

 

[Arthurwg]

Nokton, you're probably correct about camera..

I've seen pictures of her shooting with a Mamiya RB/RZ.

 

[Nokton48]

My Copy of Mark and Leibovitz by Nokton48, on Flickr

I always enjoyed this book from the day. A while back I found this copy.

 

[jtk]

I've seen pictures of her shooting with a Mamiya RB/RZ.

I do think of her as a photographic great, even recognizing the fame of most of her subjects. The photography of most commercial photographers is consistently a step above most amateur photography.

....also, fwiw, we've seen video of her shooting video as well as 8X10. She's not limited by format. I don't doubt that she's directed everything she's shot.