Are the days of the "Star" Photographer over?

RobC · Oct 31, 2015

A couple of topics got me thinking including the Brian Duffy bio in which Joanna Lumley said that in the days when she was a model (before being famous herself) that it was the photographers who were the stars and not the models. These days its the so called "celebs" and "models" who are famous and not the the photographers. What's your take on this? Is it more difficult to become a famous photographer today than say 50 years ago and if so why?

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 31, 2015

When I was born there were 2.7+ billion people alive. Today there are 7.3+ billion alive. At the end of my currently projected lifespan there are predicted to be 8.9+ billion.

It's more difficult today to stand out and become famous for everyone, not just photographers. Isn't that what the Internet is all about?

[Edit: For what it's worth, the year 2016 is predicted to be the first year where world population increases begin to consistently slow down.]

Ken

Sirius Glass · Oct 31, 2015

there will never be another Weegee.

hoffy · Oct 31, 2015

Very interesting thought.

If you had to think of the most famous photographer alive today, who would you think of?

Was it because back in the 60's, those photographers mentioned in the first post were very much of the swinging London scene?

Just a thought.

MattKing · Oct 31, 2015

The "Star Making Machinery" (to re-purpose a Joni Mitchell line) no longer makes much use of individual still photos, so there isn't a great likelihood that there will be more photographers anointed as Stars.

Helinophoto · Oct 31, 2015

Yes, with the advent of the internet, amazing talent are all around us and available for scraps.
Though, maybe a few, who are already from families of money and connections, like often in the case in photography.

Stars in their own field perhaps (like LaChapelle and others), but not world known "superstars".

Just like musicians, we will see a lot of one hit wonders come and go.

Xmas · Oct 31, 2015

hoffy said:
Very interesting thought.

If you had to think of the most famous photographer alive today, who would you think of?

Was it because back in the 60's, those photographers mentioned in the first post were very much of the swinging London scene?

Just a thought.

The only selfie I've seen on commercial tea shirts is of a mancque female.
Come on girls you can do better ?

gone · Oct 31, 2015

This is true for all art fields. The days where someone like Warhol or Picasso could dominate imagery seem to be over. How long this lasts is unknown. Computer generated imagery is the norm now. Art made w/ machines, and even printed on machines (inkjet, laser, and 3-D printers) is where we're at. Even a negative enlarger is a machine, and all photo papers are machine made. We are viewing those images on our computer and monitor machines even as I type this on my keyboard machine. I suppose the next thing will be computers that think up the images, as well as print and build them. Human art forms will be a small niche enterprise (and largely are today).

However, there are only so many types of images that can be made by humans or machines, and only so many colours on a colour wheel. Look at painting. After abstract and photo realism, what could possibly be done that hasn't already been done? We're already to the point where we're seeing the repetition of old ideas and images, and we've been at this point for quite some time. It's very apparent with music. I can't remember the last time I heard any truly original music. Symphonies, operas and ballets are musical art forms that have experienced constant repetition for ages. Music by the same old composers, played on the same old instruments. There are only so many musical tones or sounds that are pleasing to the ear, and only so many notes on a musical scale. They cannot be uniquely arranged indefinitely, as many tones are atonal, and unpleasant to listen to. So in a large sense the arts have all been done, as far as originality goes. We just work within the given fields using what we already know.

Which is good. The highest art form should be saving the planet from human destruction fueled by ignorance, hatred, desire and greed. There's no value in being a Big Deal image maker if you don't have a planet to live on. Duh. That's where humanity should be focusing it's attention and energy. But w/o a shift in conscious awareness, we will get what we always got, just on a far greater scale. This is not nihilistic doom and gloom, it's simply cause and effect. Nothing in the universe can get away from that.

MDR · Oct 31, 2015

Were they ever really the stars? The David Bailey, Brian Duffy clique was certainly well known by people into photography and celebs but the general public probably didn't know them that well and Twiggy and Jean Shrimpton to name two super models of that era were certain more famous "Stars" than any photographer except maybe for Lord Snowden .
Today we have Annie Leibovitz who is certainly well known but still not as famous as her subjects and David Lachapelle who is often better known than his subject but then his subjects aren't always top of the top models.Neither is that well know outside the photographic and celeb circle.
Interestingly even the top of the top models don't come even close to the fame of the Super Models of the 80's, 90's and some of the 1960's but are still being referred to in the media as super models which they aren't. Movie, Music, TV and reality Show celebs replaced the models and other art celebrities.

Since everything runs in circles there will be a comeback of Star photographers somewhere in the future.

Momus
"Which is good. The highest art form should be saving the planet from human destruction fueled by ignorance, hatred, desire and greed. There's no value in being a Big Deal image maker if you don't have a planet to live on. Duh. That's where humanity should be focusing it's attention and energy. But w/o a shift in conscious awareness, we will get what we always got, just on a far greater scale. This is not nihilistic doom and gloom, it's simply cause and effect. Nothing in the universe can get away from that."

Can't say I agree with the last part Art shouldn't be about reality or needs that's what we have science, NGO's and journalists for. Art can and does incorporate some of the important things you mention but art should also make people feel, make them dream , think, it should take the viewer out of his reality into another Universe that is art, constant finger pointing isn't what art or any other thing/person should do as it will only have the opposite effect.

Alan Johnson · Oct 31, 2015

Only 3 in this list of 100 that I have heard of were born after 1960:
http://www.professionalphotographer...00-most-influential-photographers-of-all-time
It may be because they don't have such close contact with printed media as there used to be.

hoffy · Oct 31, 2015

Alan Johnson said:
Only 3 in this list of 100 that I have heard of were born after 1960:
http://www.professionalphotographer...00-most-influential-photographers-of-all-time
It may be because they don't have such close contact with printed media as there used to be.

Interesting list. Most of the names that SHOULD be in there are.

OK, new question - Like you, I have to admit I am struggling to come up with a name of a photographer that is world wide renowned that is under the age of 40. Can anyone pitch me a name?

benjiboy · Oct 31, 2015

Everyone with an entry level DSLR with a kit lens these days is a legend in his/her own lifetime " how difficult can photography be ".

RobC · Oct 31, 2015

hoffy said:
Interesting list. Most of the names that SHOULD be in there are.

OK, new question - Like you, I have to admit I am struggling to come up with a name of a photographer that is world wide renowned that is under the age of 40. Can anyone pitch me a name?

rankin

This is for the UK, I'm not sure if anyone outside the UK would know about him except the fashion agencies.
Besides, I don't rate his work as anything special but he's very good at self promotion and gets to shoot a lot of stars/celebs.

Interestingly David Bailey is still alive and kicking (just) and turned down Lady GaGa who wanted him to photograph her. So he can be considered a current Star.

[edit]
just checked that list and spotted that Rankin snuck in at number 100

Jeff Bradford · Oct 31, 2015

At one time, the number of venues for publication was rather limited, as was the number of positions for artists to fill. Correspondingly, the public all saw the same media, thus the same artists. This narrow pedestal allowed artistic and journalistic integrity to be held to a standard. Nowadays, anyone can publish anything without any standards. It is difficult for anyone to stand out in the crowd. If you want to find the rockstars now, you have to look for them.

cliveh · Oct 31, 2015

Fame has more to do with fashion than skill.

Helinophoto · Oct 31, 2015

cliveh said:
Fame has more to do with fashion than skill.

Yes, but without connections, you are a nobody.
Once you're a "somebody", you tend to define the fashion.

Look at HCB, a pompus rich boy, spending his live traveling the world, sleeping with whores, drinking, living the life and earning millions, while at the same time defining street photography. All, while the rest of the world starved itself trough the depression and two world wars.
- Connections
- Money
- A talent you can tend to.

Bam, legend.

cliveh · Oct 31, 2015

Helinophoto said:
Yes, but without connections, you are a nobody.
Once you're a "somebody", you tend to define the fashion.

Look at HCB, a pompus rich boy, spending his live traveling the world, sleeping with whores, drinking, living the life and earning millions, while at the same time defining street photography. All, while the rest of the world starved itself trough the depression and two world wars.
- Connections
- Money
- A talent you can tend to.

Bam, legend.

I doubt if he earned millions until very late in life and his connections (magnum) were of his own making. However, I do understand the advantage of money, but his talent was the result of dedicated constant practice. Also, what makes you think he was pompus and slept with whores?

Helinophoto · Oct 31, 2015

cliveh said:
I doubt if he earned millions until very late in life and his connections (magnum) were of his own making. However, I do understand the advantage of money, but his talent was the result of dedicated constant practice. Also, what makes you think he was pompus and slept with whores?

He didn't have to get his hands dirty, to feed himself or his family, because he came from money.
Thus, he was able to have his fun and kindle his talent.

Heck, the whore thing, I seem to recall that he said it himself in the documentary before he keeled over. (but sure he has, who wouldn't, a young man on his travels, pockets full of money? )

I wasn't really talking about Magnum, I was talking about the connections that enabled him to travel all over the world and get access and freedom of movement, being able to sell his work etc etc.

As bitter as it sounds, it's true for most "greats" (except from the starving ones, that got worth something after their deaths, curators or relatives grabbing their money ), a living "Star" is usually connected somehow and/or comes from a family of wealth or connections.

There are/were many photographers that were "better" than HCB for example, but no one has ever heard of them. If you go online now, you'll see thousand of photographers kicking a$$ and presenting work that are "better" than the flamboyant "stars" that currently take the spotlight.

hoffy · Oct 31, 2015

How does one become a great though? How does one become a great now?

Take Steven Shore for example. Why did he become one of the renowned American photographers of the 70's? From my understanding he schmoozed around with the most important people he could find, even managing to work his way into Warhol's inner circle. While his work fascinates me and I list him as a bit of an inspiration, for the average consumer, I can easily see his work is nothing special.

The problem as I see it, is there are no Warhol's left. So who do you suck up to now? Or do you just need to ensure that you have an awesome marketing team behind you?

Helinophoto · Oct 31, 2015

Problem now days, is that all the icons you can mingle with, are separated from the rest of humanity by "agents" and "agencies", you would be pretty well connected to get a pass to the inner-circle today.

From what I understand, up until the late 70's, it seemed that it was much easier getting access to mingle and rub shoulders, but you still had to know a few people, or know someone who did.

benjiboy · Oct 31, 2015

Helinophoto said:
He didn't have to get his hands dirty, to feed himself or his family, because he came from money.
Thus, he was able to have his fun and kindle his talent.

Heck, the whore thing, I seem to recall that he said it himself in the documentary before he keeled over. (but sure he has, who wouldn't, a young man on his travels, pockets full of money? )

I wasn't really talking about Magnum, I was talking about the connections that enabled him to travel all over the world and get access and freedom of movement, being able to sell his work etc etc.

As bitter as it sounds, it's true for most "greats" (except from the starving ones, that got worth something after their deaths, curators or relatives grabbing their money ), a living "Star" is usually connected somehow and/or comes from a family of wealth or connections.

There are/were many photographers that were "better" than HCB for example, but no one has ever heard of them. If you go online now, you'll see thousand of photographers kicking a$$ and presenting work that are "better" than the flamboyant "stars" that currently take the spotlight.

H.C.B was a French Army Photographer in WW11 was captured in the Vosges mountains and spent three years in a Nazi P.O.W. camp doing slave labour, so his life wasn't all roses.as you imply.

Helinophoto · Oct 31, 2015

- My uncle spent 3 months in gestapo prison and was saved by the bell from being sent to the death-camps in Germany, he was 17, worked for the resistance and never got any fame or got rich, so what?

But ok, I'll stop, I guess we must not talk to much smack about Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Ken Nadvornick · Oct 31, 2015

cliveh said:
...but his talent was the result of dedicated constant practice.

Or more likely simply higher levels of native talent.

Genetics defines, practice refines...

Ken

hoffy · Nov 1, 2015

Helinophoto said:
- My uncle spent 3 months in gestapo prison and was saved by the bell from being sent to the death-camps in Germany, he was 17, worked for the resistance and never got any fame or got rich, so what?

But ok, I'll stop, I guess we must not talk to much smack about Henri Cartier-Bresson.

One must learn to never disrespect Hank Cater and Sir Ansel on APUG Everyone else is fair game.

Are the days of the "Star" Photographer over?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency