Beautiful Marilyn Monroe Photographed by Richard Avedon, 1957

removed account4 · Jun 12, 2014

DREW WILEY said:
Like Kertesz, I classify Avedon as one of the biggest art phonies of all time. But being a cleverly-marketed deliberate phony equated to alleged creativity as the sixties approached, just like Warhol and especially Lichtenstein. What a disgusting era. I wonder how many celebrity photographers would even be celebrated themselves if their subject weren't celebrities themselves. Bah humbug to the whole Naw Yoiker
Fashionista culture anyway. If I see just one more Avedon picture in an art museum or airport lobby, I think I'll vomit. Just a commodity at this
point. The avante garde of the 60's is now just another stuck record played over and over and over and over....ad nauseum.

i find most of the photographers that are "celebrated" today to be kind of boring, the 60s had nothing to do with it.
at least in the 60s and the 50 years before that, people making art ( commodity, pop, expressionist, surrealist, abstract, dadaist &c )
were using their imagination, "these days" im not sure what people are doing seeing there is nothing new under the sun ..
how many grand landscapes, mundane views &c can someone look at ..

oh, yeah ...

"get off my lawn"
===

cliveh · Jun 12, 2014

DREW WILEY said:
Like Kertesz, I classify Avedon as one of the biggest art phonies of all time.

I would classify Kertesz as one of the giants of photography. Why do you find his work phony?

Hatchetman · Jun 12, 2014

when I think of MM I think of Some Like It Hot. It is her voice, facial expressions, eyes, body movement that would turn an ordinary man into mush. Those photos don't really capture that vibe for me. In fact I don't find those photos "sexy" but rather forced and unnatural. That's just my 2 cents.

falotico · Jun 12, 2014

For MM fans: here is a Cibachrome enlargement from a Kodachrome which was originally taken c. 1946. Marilyn is in her early 20's and has not been in any movies. She has not yet bleached her hair, nor acquired the beauty mark on her cheek.

DREW WILEY · Jun 13, 2014

Cliveh ... Me, myself, just like Kertesz, finds Avdeon a pretentious advertisting photogapher. I admire Kertesz, but dislike Avedon for the same
reason he did. Kertesz was independently very wealthy, so really didn't need to put on an act. But I will admit that while I can appreciate the
skills necessary to be a successful commercial photographer, I detest the instant "gotcha" intrusion of ad psychology into alleged art photography. I prefer images which can grow on you. But a lot of emphasis nowadays is on superficial first impressions, and Avedon was a
master at playing that game. Take his alleged ability to draw out the sad "inner soul" of his subjects like Marilyn of the Duke and Duchess of
Windsor looking all depressed. He was merely taking advantage of them and downright wearing them down till they we so exhaused that,
at the right moment when they were off-guard, he popped the shutter. Just doing his artsy thing at their expense. I doubt he really had
any more sympathy for them than a bug on a pin in an insect collection... but whatever. His work just seems contrived.

cliveh · Jun 13, 2014

For me Kertesz has vision. He can see and arrest a shot, often with a beautiful sense of composition and timing and was also a major influence on HCB. Avedon leaves me cold. The ability to photograph people against a white background on large format is just a technical skill.

DREW WILEY · Jun 13, 2014

Same here. Kertesz was a poet. Avedon was a self-image marketer.

removed account4 · Jun 13, 2014

hi drew

sorry to ask this, but for anyone in the "advertising or art world"
they have to be a hardcore self promoter ..

what is the different between what avedon did
and any artist who happened to do advertising work ?
karsh, dr seus, adams, kasoff, sexton, schwab, metzner
or anyone else who does or has done illustration or photography on assignment
and that "aesthetic" seeps into their - art - ...

avedon brought things to fashion photography that didn't exist before him
and his portraits as well ...

i can see not liking his work because of the way he might have treated
his models (american west series) or not liking him because of the
way he acted in realife but your critique of him and his work
seems a little over the top, almost like suggesting he was a hack
who didn't deserve (whatever that means) success.

cliveh · Jun 13, 2014

jnanian said:
hi drew

sorry to ask this, but for anyone in the "art world"
they have to be a hardcore self promoter ..

Van Gogh wasn't.

removed account4 · Jun 13, 2014

cliveh said:
Van Gogh wasn't.

no, he wasn't and while there are some examples of people
who did not promote themselves and lived in poverty like van gogh (and are "undiscovered")
... and at every turn in their life they received rejection there are other times where this really isn't the case.
people often times go to extremes to get their foot in the door, lie about themselves (frank lloyd wright ) and promote endlessly.

i know of someone who walks down the street and hands business cards to every person
(even babies in carriages ) he sees.

cliveh · Jun 13, 2014

John, I think the distinctive difference is those you mention who do advertising work and therefore are commercially orientated as opposed to those who just wish to produce their own art.

Dismayed · Jun 13, 2014

cliveh said:
Van Gogh wasn't.

That's why his work did not sell while he lived.

cliveh · Jun 13, 2014

Dismayed said:
That's why his work did not sell while he lived.

And your point related to the validity of his art is?

DREW WILEY · Jun 13, 2014

Kertesz famously called him a "zero", which is even worse than calling him a hack, and refused to allow the Met show his own work because they had shown Avedon there. Some photographers live double lives. They know how to do commerical work, but they also know the distinction between this and personal photography. Even Edward Weston supported himself most of the time with a basic portrait studio, and most of those shots are worth quite little today, in contrast to the staggering sums paid for vintage prints of his personal projects. Same with AA. I guess it just depends on your philosophy. I know how to take a shot for a client. But I also consider my personal work to be all about helping people see things they never would, or in a way they never would. I detest "gotcha" ad images for other than ad work. For example, I just unpacked my 8x10 last weekend at the start of the trail at a very crowded beach parking lot visited by thousands of tourists a year. Normally I just get out of Dodge fast, hike past everyone, and find some solitude. But I'll be danged if I didn't see an incredible composition just a few yards away. So to heck with it. Up goes my camera. But I'll bet not one person of the thousand potentially walking right past that very spot this summer even see - or even point a camera that direction. A few did take pictures of me and my camera, all
in a polite manner. But they had no idea what my camera was doing propped up there. They didn't see anything at all. Sometimes people do
wait and ask permission to look into my groundglass after I take the shot. I try to accommodate them; and even though it's an upside-down
image, it's still a revelation to most of them. But images that just smash you in the face for an instant like a Bozo the Clown pie... those should be left on billboard or websites or whatever...

removed account4 · Jun 13, 2014

DREW WILEY said:
Kertesz famously called him a "zero", which is even worse than calling him a hack, and refused to allow the Met show his own work because they had shown Avedon there. Some photographers live double lives. They know how to do commerical work, but they also know the distinction between this and personal photography. Even Edward Weston supported himself most of the time with a basic portrait studio, and most of those shots are worth quite little today, in contrast to the staggering sums paid for vintage prints of his personal projects. Same with AA. I guess it just depends on your philosophy. I know how to take a shot for a client. But I also consider my personal work to be all about helping people see things they never would, or in a way they never would. I detest "gotcha" ad images for other than ad work. For example, I just unpacked my 8x10 last weekend at the start of the trail at a very crowded beach parking lot visited by thousands of tourists a year. Normally I just get out of Dodge fast, hike past everyone, and find some solitude. But I'll be danged if I didn't see an incredible composition just a few yards away. So to heck with it. Up goes my camera. But I'll bet not one person of the thousand potentially walking right past that very spot this summer even see - or even point a camera that direction. A few did take pictures of me and my camera, all
in a polite manner. But they had no idea what my camera was doing propped up there. They didn't see anything at all. Sometimes people do
wait and ask permission to look into my groundglass after I take the shot. I try to accommodate them; and even though it's an upside-down
image, it's still a revelation to most of them. But images that just smash you in the face for an instant like a Bozo the Clown pie... those should be left on billboard or websites or whatever...

sorry drew
but i can't make any sense out of any of your post at all.

and unfortunately your website has nothing recent so i ( and no one else ) can't even
refer to what you might be talking about ... "gotcha" bozo pie in the face ?

hoffy · Jun 14, 2014

falotico said:
For MM fans: here is a Cibachrome enlargement from a Kodachrome which was originally taken c. 1946. Marilyn is in her early 20's and has not been in any movies. She has not yet bleached her hair, nor acquired the beauty mark on her cheek.View attachment 89483

I get a feed of pinup pictures on my facebook from time to time. Quite often, they are of MM, but from her Norma Jean period. I find those images very intriguing and they add another level of complexity to her character.

removed account4 · Jun 14, 2014

cliveh said:
John, I think the distinctive difference is those you mention who do advertising work and therefore are commercially orientated as opposed to those who just wish to produce their own art.

hi clive

sorry i missed this last night when you posted it ...

if you produce your own art to be sold in some way shape or form it is a commercial endeavor, isn't it ?
in a lot of cases, especially in this day and age, the line between "personal art work" or " producing one's own artwork"
and doing commercial ( artwork for commerce/illustration, advertising/editorial work &c ) is blurred.
it isn't hard to go to places like the alternative pick and thumb through the photographers' work there
and see their art and commercial work is often similar or the same, one feeds the other.
there is a difference between hcb, street, journalist, architectural, grand landscape, and portrait+fashion photographers.
and the argument that photographing a stylized portrait of someone infront of a backdrop is a technical skill ... so is
arresting a moment in time, or photographing a pepper to look like a female nude, or making any sort of portrait, or processing film, or making a print

there really isn't much of a difference that i can see, other than some people are self promoters and some people would rather a different life.
and because they are self promoters they are a gimmick ...
how many photographers these days offer workshops for hundreds or thousands of dollars a person for a weekend,
isn't that a self-promotion-gimmick too?

yulia_s_rey · Jun 14, 2014

Intersting argument about the artist-promoter in the previous posts; while reading them the first artist to come to mind was Dali.

cliveh · Jun 14, 2014

yurisrey said:
Intersting argument about the artist-promoter in the previous posts; while reading them the first artist to come to mind was Dali.

And what a promoter he was.

hoffy · Jun 14, 2014

And how does one get discovered if they don't self promote?

DREW WILEY · Jun 18, 2014

Bad comparison. Dali could really really paint. His brushwork was remarkable, his draftsmanship remarkable, his creativity too. Was he an actual
nut, or was that just part of his marketing personna? I suspect some of both. He was borderline just plain crooked when he signed hundred of
blank sheet of paper which hadn't even been printed on yet. Of course, a lot of those posters of his works (which is all they really were) suckered a lot of dumb investors. Most of them weren't even worth the frames they put in. ... wholesale cost around fifteen or twenty bucks
apiece, run in editions of tens of thousands sometimes. But what inspired that level of greed I'd don't know. He was already filthy rich from
the painting themselves and privately commissioned paintings. But he was a genius. Avedon... I just see him as a clever fashion photographer
pulling some stunts. The concept of "creativity" in the 60's with "Pop Art" and all that was basically poking fun at the system anyway. But
now it's become the stale old regime itself, and I'm damn tired of it. As far as pictures of Marilyn are involved, well probably anyone could have gotten a good shot of her. I'm reminded of the official royal portrait Annie L. took of Queen E. I was so formulaic and scripted that any
competent commercial photographer could have done it. Same with AA's official portrait of Jimmy Carter. By contrast, last night I was looking
at Julia Cameron's portraits. Today the pictures of some of her otherwise unknown servant are worth even more than her portraits of very
famous people, cause of the look. Avedon fed on celebrity. His "American West" pictures look like a bug collection, stereotypes made for his
NYC audience. And that bee guy, or Natasha with the Snake.... corneee, corneeeee, corneeeeeeee.

cliveh · Jun 18, 2014

Was Julia Cameron into self promotion?

DREW WILEY · Jun 18, 2014

She didn't need to be a self-promoter. Fully frumpy Victorian society. People were either born or married into the upper crust social circles or weren't. Lords n' Ladies. One of the posters on both this forum and the LFF lives on the same island, and recently told me her "house" has been made into a museum, with her prints on display. I got curious and found a picture of that "house" in one of my photo books. Let's just say she was rather well off financially. More like what most of us would classify as a mansion.

cliveh · Jun 18, 2014

Her house was no mansion, I've been there and I'm sure Steve will verify this.

DREW WILEY · Jun 18, 2014

I'm referring to the house she lived in. I don't know what remaining portion of it has been dedicated to the museum. For all I know, that could likely be the original "chicken house" where she did her photography. The contemporaneous photographs of their estate show something downright huge. They held substantial parties there for wealthy folk, who she then leveraged one by one into a sitting in the "chicken coop". Not a cottage by any means. Just look at her subjects. Some very famous people. We have analogous situations around here, where the rich and famous own mere barns far more opulent than the houses of even the average rich person. Twenty million dollars of race horses on the
ground floor, fifteen guest rooms in the top floor.

Beautiful Marilyn Monroe Photographed by Richard Avedon, 1957

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency