Discuss a picture by Leibovitz

jp80874 · Oct 11, 2006

If you like Annie Leibovitz's work, you might also enjoy the book "Annie Leibovitz American Music". The 2003 Random House book of 240 pictures expanded on her summer of 2004, eighty picture exhibit at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, Ohio. This picture was not in the book and in my memory not in the exibit.

John Powers

Mick Fagan · Oct 11, 2006

Tony, I think you have hit the nail on the head, fair and square.

Camera Lucida and Roland's Studium and Punctum, make for some very fascinating reading.

I think he knocked it off the Italians, a studium is a high place of learning, as in tertiary education (university) AFAIK.

Mick.

Claire Senft · Oct 11, 2006

If the photo is by AL, I am unlikely to care for it.

blansky · Oct 11, 2006

I was pondering this last night. And maybe it boils down to this.

Anybody can take a picture of a beautiful woman. Most people, men and women are somehow attracted to look at them. We are drawn to it.

You'd have to be pretty much of a loser photographer to screw up a picture like this.

And anybody with access can photograph a celeb. For some bizarre reason we are drawn to that as well.

But a good photographer with skill, craft and compassion can photograph a "plain" woman and draw out her beauty. This beauty will attract people on a much higher level than eye candy.

A good photographer with skill, craft and compassion can photograph an ordinary person (uncle bob) and make this person interesting and compelling.

That's why I dislike the celebration of mediocrity by applauding "easy shoots".

Michael

jimgalli · Oct 11, 2006

I'd be a lot more interested to see a picture of Lennon done by Imogen.

GraemeMitchell · Oct 12, 2006

blansky said:
That's why I dislike the celebration of mediocrity by applauding "easy shoots".

Michael

I disagree with this. Have you ever shot a celeb? It takes a special personality to do well. You have 10-20 mins; you have very very sensitive and big and odd egos; you have a pr person hounding you at every turn, and you're usually dealing with people who literally HATE to be photographed (love to act, but hate to be photographed). It's a odd game.

Even if Annie is just a celeb 'commercial' photog, I still think most people here are overlooking how good at it she is. I mean she nails it everytime. And who cares if she's mean to her assistants (btw, not a pre-req by any means, lots of shooters like this are way cool and easy going: Robert Mawell, Lindbergh, etc). I just don't think it matters in regards to the picture.

And I think if you charged Annie with taking a pic of Uncle Bob she'd handle it nicely.

(And I'm not even a huge fan of her work...I just appreciate how good she is at it.)

bjorke · Oct 12, 2006

blansky said:
...Part of this is because we seem to have this strange relationships with media created celebrities...

There is no other kind. There were occasional famous people, but no celebrities before 1840. THey are a creation -- a side effect -- of Photography.

AL seems to be pushing the grotesque notion that (now that the real thing is gone) she is the new Avedon, rather than just the sycophantic voice of the studio PR department. Her photos, like an Oprah show, only show you what you expected to see anyway.

blansky · Oct 12, 2006

GraemeMitchell said:
I disagree with this. Have you ever shot a celeb? It takes a special personality to do well. You have 10-20 mins; you have very very sensitive and big and odd egos; you have a pr person hounding you at every turn, and you're usually dealing with people who literally HATE to be photographed (love to act, but hate to be photographed). It's a odd game.

Even if Annie is just a celeb 'commercial' photog, I still think most people here are overlooking how good at it she is. I mean she nails it everytime. And who cares if she's mean to her assistants (btw, not a pre-req by any means, lots of shooters like this are way cool and easy going: Robert Mawell, Lindbergh, etc). I just don't think it matters in regards to the picture.

And I think if you charged Annie with taking a pic of Uncle Bob she'd handle it nicely.

(And I'm not even a huge fan of her work...I just appreciate how good she is at it.)

Shooting children is easy?

Shooting execs and CEOs is easy?

Shooting Weddings is easy?

Shooting wars is easy?

Granted celeb hangers ons, are a pain in the ass, but this genre is not all that different than any shoot. Get it done and get out.

Leibovitz also gets an incredible amount of time with subjects. I believe the latest masterpiece, the Tom Cruise thing, she had a week.

Michael

GraemeMitchell · Oct 12, 2006

blansky said:
Granted celeb hangers ons, are a pain in the ass, but this genre is not all that different than any shoot. Get it done and get out.

I disagree with this too, humbly. All the things you listed are different, some easier, some more diffucult. All depends...and speaking in generalities of course. I don't think it's ever as simple as get in and get out, at least not if you're good...except maybe in war photography, which I know nothing of.

My original point, which I stand by, is that people flip through mags and look at work by the likes of Annie (or any top fashion or celeb shooter) and, well, act as the peanut gallery, so to speak. When most people have no idea how difficult it is to produce work on that level. Like they have a general idea, but always fall back on, big budgets, big lights, lots of assistants, and a famous name. Sure, big lights are cool, but there is more to it than that. If there wasn't, everyone would be doing it.

Anyway, this is off topic of the original post, I apologize. I'll exit.

Cheryl Jacobs · Oct 12, 2006

With all due respect, who can say what kind of work is "easier" and what kind is "difficult"? I find landscapes ridiculously hard, whereas my husband finds them very easy to shoot well. I find photographing kids to be easy and natural, while it wouldn't be so easy for him (outside of our own kids.) You can only judge what is easy or hard for you, not for everyone.

That said, I know it's difficult for AL to bring out a spark and a connection wiith her subjects. Before you pounce on me for saying that, I know it because she herself said so in a TV interview yesterday. She readily admitted that unlike a few other prominent photographers, she has a hard time connecting with people when photographing them. That's precisely what I see in her photography; it's a record of appearances. That's why I'm not terribly impressed with it. She does use her assistants to try to bring the spark out of her subjects, but it's not the same thing.

Part of the difficulty in photographing people anywhere is that you're rarely dealing with just the actual photography. There are almost always parents, onlookers, constraints, and other distractions to be dealt with. Most photographers don't work with an army of assistants who are assigned to deal with the majority of the distractions. When I photograph people, I am the bouncer, the entertainer, the therapist, the wardrobe designer, the make-up artist, the PR person, the legal analyst, the gopher, the film-loader, the connection-maker, everything. Nobody to do it for me, and the success of the work depends on my ability to wear all those hats. And I have to do it all in an hour or two, not the two weeks granted to AL to photograph TomKateSuri. Imagine what I could do if half those items were taken off my job description.

I'm not saying she is an untalented photographer, only that what she does just doesn't impress me. I don't find her work to be insightful or moving. Colorful and fun, absolutely.

Pastiche · Oct 12, 2006

I have no idea who the hell that is in the snapshot.

MattKing · Oct 13, 2006

Cheryl Jacobs said:
When I photograph people, I am the bouncer, the entertainer, the therapist, the wardrobe designer, the make-up artist, the PR person, the legal analyst, the gopher, the film-loader, the connection-maker, everything.

Cheryl:

This seems to be perfect for either a new signature, or a new T-shirt. I may "borrow" it.

Matt

severian · Oct 13, 2006

coffee table book

this whole thread brings to mind a book that a student recently brought to me. For the life of me I cant remember the guys name( it's very early in the morning) anyway he is very au currant and hip and I am not. The photographs were of people who were evidently A list celebrities. They were all photographed in a hallway and under much the same conditions. Very boring, The only reason I would turn the page was to see who the next celebity was. My interest waned after about three pages.The book was gorgeous. The photographs were wonderfully crafted but in the end the content was repetitive and ,for me, not very interesting. Thats interesting to me because I could look at the celebrity photographs made by Irving Penn all day even though they were made under the same repetitive conditions.
Jack B

Dorothy Blum Cooper · Oct 13, 2006

I am not really interested in Leibovitz as a photographer. I am just wondering what others think of this particular picture as a photograph and also as a portrait.

Maybe if she'd have used black and white film it would have had more of an impact. Otherwise...it doesn't do a whole lot for me.

I'd be a lot more interested to see a picture of Lennon done by Imogen.

lee · Oct 13, 2006

I find that I am looking at this image in context for which it is used...in an record album jacket. I think it serves its purpose. I think most of you all are making way too big a deal with this image. More than likely it was the art director that chose the image and not AL. There were probably a zillion images to choose from and why this one was chosen is beyond us to know.

lee\c

Nicole · Oct 13, 2006

I like the image - even in colour. Until recently I've never taken much interest in who the photographer is. There are times when I really don't want to know - and there are many photos I've enjoyed viewing without knowing the artist. I've seen this one before and now thanks to Flotsam know who it was. So what if the photographer has to be a jack-of-all-trades running the entire show as some of us do, or has an entire army of people helping, is a nice person or not. Good for Annie to get to where she is and have the opportunity to meet interesting people along the way. I hope she enjoys her work.

Cheryl Jacobs · Oct 13, 2006

Lee, precisely my point. That's most of what her work is: commercial stuff directed and selected by someone else. That's why I don't find her work particularly exciting. It sells well and it sells stuff well, but commercial success doesn't equal greatness.

She is what she is, and that's fine. I would find this photo a little boring no matter who took it.

Daniel_OB · Oct 13, 2006

Shooting celebs is commercial photography in most cases (or in normal case) and that photographs has very specific purpose, but not for sure art, as many here target when discusing. What to get out of such "actor" is what he is NOT. It is very difficult to make. As Blanski said if it is not Lenon, all is different and looking the photograph we know much more about the person. But it is celeb and his photograph just adds to blur about the personality, and it has to. More about portrait photography you can find here (still revising but in basic it is it):
Dead Link Removed

www.Leica-R.com

donbga · Oct 13, 2006

lee said:
I find that I am looking at this image in context for which it is used...in an record album jacket. I think it serves its purpose. I think most of you all are making way too big a deal with this image. More than likely it was the art director that chose the image and not AL. There were probably a zillion images to choose from and why this one was chosen is beyond us to know.

lee\c

Though I'm generally not an AL fan, I must say that her new book, "A Photographers Life" is pretty interesting. Or at least parts of it. It's an odd mix of photos, a semi-documentary of her life with Susan Sontag interspersed <sp?> with celebraty portraits, some very good too.

Sort of a best of AL. I wouldn't pay $75 for the book but when it hits the mark down bin I might be tempted.

All in all though as Cheryl said there is a missing spark with many of the portraits. Her photo of Willie Nelson is iconic, and she has mastered the ability to make contempary environmental color portraits. I was also fairly impressed with her group portrait of the Bush Administration. But this also under lines the fact that much of her success is due to access to these personalities. I know there are many pros out there that can make as good as or better photos. I don't regard her as a timeless master and I think that's the way history will catorgarize <sp?> her work.

Bringing this back to Lennon, he was once asked if the Beatles are great musicians. His reply was that they (The Beatles) are adequate but not great musicians. I think the same can be said of AL's work. Adequate but not great. And the same for the Lennon shot in question.

catem · Oct 13, 2006

lee said:
I find that I am looking at this image in context for which it is used...in an record album jacket. I think it serves its purpose. I think most of you all are making way too big a deal with this image. More than likely it was the art director that chose the image and not AL. There were probably a zillion images to choose from and why this one was chosen is beyond us to know.

lee\c

Exactly. Regardless of the kind of photographer you think AL might be, this was never intended to be the world's greatest portrait. It was an album cover. It would've had to fit with text, for starters. It's 'messages' were perhaps more obvious than most (the gitanes). Take it for what it was meant to be.

Like Nicole, I also tend to say 'good for Annie'. There are far too few women who make it big-time financially, and when they do, I've noticed there are always a great many people ready to knock them. More so, it seems, than the lousy men who make it to the top

Cate

Cheryl Jacobs · Oct 13, 2006

Cate, I also wish Annie continued financial success. Doesn't mean I have to think her work is the bees knees. I'm not knocking her as a person; I'm just expressing my views on her work. I am taking it for what it was meant to be.

It's not a gender thing. You'll not find me knocking Diane Arbus' work. You WILL, on the other hand, find me knocking Ansel Adams' portrait work.

- CJ

lee · Oct 13, 2006

AL made her mark as a photographer during the Rolling Stone Magazine days. She had lots of special access. Maybe she is still living off those glory days. I dont know but it is a possiblity.

lee\c

catem · Oct 13, 2006

Cheryl Jacobs said:
I'm not knocking her as a person; I'm just expressing my views on her work.

- CJ

We're all talking about her work, aren't we.

I wasn't aiming my comments at you, particularly, Cheryl, or anyone else individually. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I may also tend to agree with it.

I have noticed, though, a particular intolerance of 'women at the top'.

There again, I sometimes think I am losing my critical faculties, and seem unduly concerned, compared with other people in these discussions (speaking very generally, and not of this thread only or particularly), with seeing whatever positive there is in other people's work, where there sometimes seems a tendency for people to cry "rubbish". I am more than willing to accept that this may be a fault in me.
Cate

donbga · Oct 13, 2006

Stargazer said:
We're all talking about her work, aren't we.

I wasn't aiming my comments at you, particularly, Cheryl, or anyone else individually. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and I may also tend to agree with it.

I have noticed, though, a particular intolerance of 'women at the top'.

There again, I sometimes think I am losing my critical faculties, and seem unduly concerned, compared with other people in these discussions (speaking very generally, and not of this thread only or particularly), with seeing whatever positive there is in other people's work, where there sometimes seems a tendency for people to cry "rubbish". I am more than willing to accept that this may be a fault in me.
Cate

I think everyone who has posted in this thread should read this article about AL and her new book. It clearly clarifies and supports some of the statements made about Annie.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14964292/site/newsweek/

GraemeMitchell · Oct 13, 2006

Stargazer said:
There again, I sometimes think I am losing my critical faculties, and seem unduly concerned, compared with other people in these discussions (speaking very generally, and not of this thread only or particularly), with seeing whatever positive there is in other people's work, where there sometimes seems a tendency for people to cry "rubbish". I am more than willing to accept that this may be a fault in me.
Cate

Cate, thank you, I was beginning to feel like I was the crazy one until you came along.

When I began shooting I'd see mediocre advertisments, celeb shots, fashion stories, etc, and think I could do so much better. Time passed, I worked, now I see those same kinds of pictures, and think, boy I could have done a lot worse.

And again, I'm not even a particular fan of ALs. I just keep revisiting this b/c I'm amazed at some of the reactionary pretensions about what's what, how celeb portraits are commercial work (it's most often editorial), how it's not art, and so on. I'm not saying this in a passive aggressive tone, and I'm also not trying to say what is or what isn't anything. I don't have a clue. I'm just kind of in surprised at the course of the discussion.

Discuss a picture by Leibovitz

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency