Annie Leibovitz
- Thread starter bob cole
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 2K
S
suzums
Guest
Thanks for sharing the link!! Very interesting read, and I've just pre-ordered the book! 🙂
IGMeanwell
Well-known
That looks great
I might have to add that to my collection
I might have to add that to my collection
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
There was a long review of this book in the NY Times. I think I'll pass, not being much of a fan of celebrities, celebrity photographers, or celebrity/photographers.
I don't have a problem with Leibovitz coming out as a lesbian (although that seems so 20th century) or even that she had the hots for Susan Sontag (must have been an ugly job, but I guess somebody had to do it.)
Still... I can't help thinking that it was Leibovitz specifically that Elliott Erwitt had in mind when he made the following remark (in an interview published in the April 1992 issue of Camera and Darkroom magazine, which I've saved ever since specifically for that interview):
And as long as I've got the magazine out, here's another Erwitt quote from the same interview, which I think not only applies to Leibovitz (the "outrageous within the norm" part) but that I often like to recall when reflecting on the (non)success of my own (non)publishing career in photography:
A lot of the things that one does, do not get used. To be used, you have to be familiar. People very often don't have the security of doing anything that is really outside of the norm. You can be outrageous within the norm, but you can't be subtle outside the norm and really expect to be published. It could happen, and you could start even a fashion that way, but that's rare. People are not very adventurous. They really hesitate unless it's something familiar."
I don't have a problem with Leibovitz coming out as a lesbian (although that seems so 20th century) or even that she had the hots for Susan Sontag (must have been an ugly job, but I guess somebody had to do it.)
Still... I can't help thinking that it was Leibovitz specifically that Elliott Erwitt had in mind when he made the following remark (in an interview published in the April 1992 issue of Camera and Darkroom magazine, which I've saved ever since specifically for that interview):
C&D: Is there anybody now that's shooting that you particularly like?
EE: Many of my colleagues like Sebastiao Salgado are doing wonderful work. But we seem to be now in a big "star f**king" phase. Famous people in outrageous poses. You get a formula, and then you stick to the formula, and you get them to take their clothes off or you have them takes baths in milk. Fine, I like that. It's very amusing, but it's formula. When you've seen three or four pictures, you've seen them.
There's no discovery, there's a lot of cleverness, and that's okay, it's good for magazines and that's where you see it, but the more subtle, interesting stuff you don't see in popular publications. I'd like to see more photographers shoot duller things and make them interesting. I don't mean like wilting lilies or flower arrangements, but human stuff. Stuff that doesn't jump out at you. Life is not only misery and hysteria, it's also everything in between."
EE: Many of my colleagues like Sebastiao Salgado are doing wonderful work. But we seem to be now in a big "star f**king" phase. Famous people in outrageous poses. You get a formula, and then you stick to the formula, and you get them to take their clothes off or you have them takes baths in milk. Fine, I like that. It's very amusing, but it's formula. When you've seen three or four pictures, you've seen them.
There's no discovery, there's a lot of cleverness, and that's okay, it's good for magazines and that's where you see it, but the more subtle, interesting stuff you don't see in popular publications. I'd like to see more photographers shoot duller things and make them interesting. I don't mean like wilting lilies or flower arrangements, but human stuff. Stuff that doesn't jump out at you. Life is not only misery and hysteria, it's also everything in between."
And as long as I've got the magazine out, here's another Erwitt quote from the same interview, which I think not only applies to Leibovitz (the "outrageous within the norm" part) but that I often like to recall when reflecting on the (non)success of my own (non)publishing career in photography:
A lot of the things that one does, do not get used. To be used, you have to be familiar. People very often don't have the security of doing anything that is really outside of the norm. You can be outrageous within the norm, but you can't be subtle outside the norm and really expect to be published. It could happen, and you could start even a fashion that way, but that's rare. People are not very adventurous. They really hesitate unless it's something familiar."
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
jlw: Whew...thinking back to a years-ago business-related encounter with both Leibovitz and Sontag (long, convoluted story), let's just say some pieces are finally fitting here. 🙂
My problem with Leibovitz is that the more I've been exposed to both the person and her work, the less I seem to receive. Part of this has to do with getting too close to the artist not to keep certain personality judgements at bay while judging the work (almost anyone who has assisted for her will be nodding his or her head here). The bigger part, for me, is that Leibovitz has always been something of a one-note player – awfully good at the thing she does (perhaps the best), photographically speaking – but that one thing holds less and less interest for me with time. Little of what she's done has held its power for me, however much work went into a given image (and, make no mistake, the woman sweats tank shells over details, the small and big stuff), but it seems so much ado for so relatively little, from my standpoint.
So, yeah, what Erwitt said. (Who comes closest to a photographic hero for me, although, like Ray Davies, I don't much believe in heroes.)
- Barrett
My problem with Leibovitz is that the more I've been exposed to both the person and her work, the less I seem to receive. Part of this has to do with getting too close to the artist not to keep certain personality judgements at bay while judging the work (almost anyone who has assisted for her will be nodding his or her head here). The bigger part, for me, is that Leibovitz has always been something of a one-note player – awfully good at the thing she does (perhaps the best), photographically speaking – but that one thing holds less and less interest for me with time. Little of what she's done has held its power for me, however much work went into a given image (and, make no mistake, the woman sweats tank shells over details, the small and big stuff), but it seems so much ado for so relatively little, from my standpoint.
So, yeah, what Erwitt said. (Who comes closest to a photographic hero for me, although, like Ray Davies, I don't much believe in heroes.)
- Barrett
Last edited:
ghost
Well-known
i have little interest in doing the work she does, but i like looking at the better stuff.
this made me throw up a little, though: "Leibovitz seems to long for the feeling of reportage."
this made me throw up a little, though: "Leibovitz seems to long for the feeling of reportage."
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Having assistants do most of the work doesn't necessarily bother me. Lois Greenfield, a brilliant photographer AND a really nice lady, seems to work basically the same way (from what I've seen in a few workshops with her.)
She works like a film director: she visualizes what she wants to achieve, then recruits and guides a creative team that can deliver the result she has in mind. She acknowledges their expertise and they acknowledge her leadership, and everyone seems to work together quite happily. She encourages everyone's input and mediates them toward a consensus. Or, as she said to me during one workshop, "I like to get everyone on the right track and then just go around and sprinkle my pixie dust here and there."
This is quite different from the lone-wolf-with-a-camera ideal that permeates most of rangefinder photography, but it seems like a perfectly good way to make certain types of pictures.
I suspect a lot of the superficiality (IMO) of Liebovitz' work simply comes from the fact that so much of it involves photographing celebrities. When you come right down to it, most celebrities haven't really done anything that especially deserves being celebrated -- there's nothing to them anyway but surface, so there's nothing to photograph beneath the surface.
(Not that many celebrities, I'm sure, aren't perfectly decent people. It's just that beyond their public persona, there's nothing about them that's any more interesting than anyone else.)
I suppose the tricky thing about photographing genuinely accomplished, interesting people is that a lot of what makes them who they are isn't apparent through appearance, and appearance is what the camera sees. For example, somebody I think of as being fascinating is the late physicist Richard P. Feynman, a brilliant guy who also had an unusual knack for expressing his brilliant thoughts in an accessible, entertaining way. But how would you photograph him to convey that?
A well-known guy whom I've actually photographed is Warren Buffett, who's a bit unusual in that he's made a gigantic amount of money in a mostly benign fashion, and now is in the process of trying to give most of it away in an equally benign fashion. Unpretentious nice-guy billionaires being a somewhat unusual species, you'd think he's the kind of person who'd be worth trying to photograph -- but when you do, all you get is a picture of a pleasant-looking old guy in a wrinkled suit.
(His son Howard is a rather talented shooter, by the way, working in the field of wildlife and outdoor stuff. I saw a good exhibit of his a couple of years ago, a series on the theme of how people around the world grow their food. I guess I'm more attracted to this type of photography, where the idea is about "what" or "how" rather than "who.")
Anyway... while I'm certainly not in awe of Leibowitz, I concede she's gotten a good crop out of the little patch of garden she's chosen to till. It's just not where I'd want to scratch.
She works like a film director: she visualizes what she wants to achieve, then recruits and guides a creative team that can deliver the result she has in mind. She acknowledges their expertise and they acknowledge her leadership, and everyone seems to work together quite happily. She encourages everyone's input and mediates them toward a consensus. Or, as she said to me during one workshop, "I like to get everyone on the right track and then just go around and sprinkle my pixie dust here and there."
This is quite different from the lone-wolf-with-a-camera ideal that permeates most of rangefinder photography, but it seems like a perfectly good way to make certain types of pictures.
I suspect a lot of the superficiality (IMO) of Liebovitz' work simply comes from the fact that so much of it involves photographing celebrities. When you come right down to it, most celebrities haven't really done anything that especially deserves being celebrated -- there's nothing to them anyway but surface, so there's nothing to photograph beneath the surface.
(Not that many celebrities, I'm sure, aren't perfectly decent people. It's just that beyond their public persona, there's nothing about them that's any more interesting than anyone else.)
I suppose the tricky thing about photographing genuinely accomplished, interesting people is that a lot of what makes them who they are isn't apparent through appearance, and appearance is what the camera sees. For example, somebody I think of as being fascinating is the late physicist Richard P. Feynman, a brilliant guy who also had an unusual knack for expressing his brilliant thoughts in an accessible, entertaining way. But how would you photograph him to convey that?
A well-known guy whom I've actually photographed is Warren Buffett, who's a bit unusual in that he's made a gigantic amount of money in a mostly benign fashion, and now is in the process of trying to give most of it away in an equally benign fashion. Unpretentious nice-guy billionaires being a somewhat unusual species, you'd think he's the kind of person who'd be worth trying to photograph -- but when you do, all you get is a picture of a pleasant-looking old guy in a wrinkled suit.
(His son Howard is a rather talented shooter, by the way, working in the field of wildlife and outdoor stuff. I saw a good exhibit of his a couple of years ago, a series on the theme of how people around the world grow their food. I guess I'm more attracted to this type of photography, where the idea is about "what" or "how" rather than "who.")
Anyway... while I'm certainly not in awe of Leibowitz, I concede she's gotten a good crop out of the little patch of garden she's chosen to till. It's just not where I'd want to scratch.
Last edited:
specular
Member
Thanks, JLW. You make sense. And I like those quotes. Now I go look up who Erwitt is. 😱
ghost
Well-known
celebrity photography is a small patch of garden...you're kidding, right?
specular
Member
"I'd like to see more photographers shoot duller things and make them interesting"
Well in all fairness, I think photographing Harrison Ford shaving may have been exactly that, no? On the other hand, photographing me shaving, for example, and making it interesting is probably more what Erwitt had in mind, well sort of.
Are there any straight visual artists who have such access privs to the rich and famous?
Well in all fairness, I think photographing Harrison Ford shaving may have been exactly that, no? On the other hand, photographing me shaving, for example, and making it interesting is probably more what Erwitt had in mind, well sort of.
Are there any straight visual artists who have such access privs to the rich and famous?
Last edited:
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I don't believe in dismissing someone for find a niche.
She is good at making the sensational seem even more sensational; Hell if we pride celebs on their looks... then as a photographer wouldn't you do your best make sure to emphasize their physical beauty?
People who want to read and follow celebrities want a photograph that gives them some sort of idea of what they will read in the article. So that means conveying a polished rendition of sometimes a very shallow subject... but its the nature of the beast and Lebovitz does a good job at what she is hired to do.
I thought some of those family portaits (especially the delivery room) were probably a more accurate portrayal of her day to day photography. However our day to day photographs are not always what end up in the portfolio... its the images that make the money.
She is good at making the sensational seem even more sensational; Hell if we pride celebs on their looks... then as a photographer wouldn't you do your best make sure to emphasize their physical beauty?
People who want to read and follow celebrities want a photograph that gives them some sort of idea of what they will read in the article. So that means conveying a polished rendition of sometimes a very shallow subject... but its the nature of the beast and Lebovitz does a good job at what she is hired to do.
I thought some of those family portaits (especially the delivery room) were probably a more accurate portrayal of her day to day photography. However our day to day photographs are not always what end up in the portfolio... its the images that make the money.
40oz
...
I guess I don't feel the woman has really done much besides glamour shots of rich people, which doesn't really impress me all that much.
amateriat
We're all light!
On an absolute scale, I think it is small(ish). It's the most visibly prominent patch, of course (check for the gold star in the middle), but not much bigger than others.ghost said:
- Barrett
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
ghost said:
Relative to the whole scale of photography, it IS a small patch, and rather crowded with would-be gardeners. But the crop it yields is very lucrative. (Sort of like pot... and does the same kinds of things to your brain, if you indulge too much or too long...)
W
wtl
Guest
one thing is certain, good or bad, she is doing the things she believes while others are sitting around talking...
scottgee1
RF renegade
I'm pretty sure it was Francesco Scavullo (another celeb/fashion photog) who said, "If you scratch the surface, you're lucky if you find more surface."
He was also on one of Geraldo Rivera's chat shows with a bevy of Vogue models, talking about what it's like to work for the magazine. Amongst the typical inane Rivera questions was, "How much would it cost for a private sitting with you?" He asked it numerous times and Scavullo continued to deflect it, saying he doesn't accept private commissions. But Rivera persisted and finally, in an exasperated voice, Scavullo replied "Oh, I don't know. Around thirty-thousand dollars."
I assume he was joking just to shut Rivera up. But then again, he was Scavullo, in NYC, in that business and it was the 80s and well . . .
Interesting that you'd bring Leibovitz up. I got American Music from the local library and am enjoying it. I like it better than her glitzier work and she has brought a number of musicians of whom I was unaware to my attention.
FWIW, for that type of shooting, I rather like DeMarchelier and Elgort. And Avedon is in a whole different category, IMO.
my two lux worth/ScottGee1
He was also on one of Geraldo Rivera's chat shows with a bevy of Vogue models, talking about what it's like to work for the magazine. Amongst the typical inane Rivera questions was, "How much would it cost for a private sitting with you?" He asked it numerous times and Scavullo continued to deflect it, saying he doesn't accept private commissions. But Rivera persisted and finally, in an exasperated voice, Scavullo replied "Oh, I don't know. Around thirty-thousand dollars."
I assume he was joking just to shut Rivera up. But then again, he was Scavullo, in NYC, in that business and it was the 80s and well . . .
Interesting that you'd bring Leibovitz up. I got American Music from the local library and am enjoying it. I like it better than her glitzier work and she has brought a number of musicians of whom I was unaware to my attention.
FWIW, for that type of shooting, I rather like DeMarchelier and Elgort. And Avedon is in a whole different category, IMO.
my two lux worth/ScottGee1
jlw said:
40oz
...
wtl said:
And yet other people are doing things THEY believe in :/ And if you actually RTFA, you'd have read that she does (and has done) what she does because she gets paid to do it, not from a burning desire to generate yet more meaningless fluff for the covers of meaningless fluff peddlers.
ghost
Well-known
when are people going to get it in their heads that pop culture is not meaningless fluff?
FrankS
Registered User
Agreed. It just seems meaningless to the older generation.
ghost
Well-known
i dunno. they seemed to like pop culture back then.
