Annie Leibovitz

[Al Patterson]

Ghost, things change. When we're young and the target audience for "pop culture", we think it's neat, or we get it. When we get older and have a greater level of critical thinking, we realize that "90% of everything is crap".

Annie Lieobowitz bores me. I think Andy Warhol was overrated. Most of the music I liked at 18 annoys me at 50. Wait until you hit 50, the world will look quite different than it did at 25. But, while you like the pop culture, enjoy it. I did. "At least what I remember of it". (It WAS the '70s...)

 

[Taipei-metro]

You are right. Al,
Erwitt hits the mark.
A.L. 's celeb photos are her 'own movie' scene shots, really boring.
I can not stand her Lennon Yoko shot. The only one I like is the John Belushi one, where he stands beside a highway. I like the guy.
Check out these two prettier, younger, and more interesting Japanese female photographers,
Yurie Nagashima and Mineko Orisaku.

 

[specular]

There is just SO much more pop culture today then there was in the 60s and 70s. When I was a boy at camp, guys were imatating Black Tooth and White Fang (of Soupy Sales fame.) When i was 3 I wore a coonskin hat. You know from what early TV show that fad came. Today it seems as if what America kids wear, eat, drink, smoke, say is all commercial. Exagerated facial expressions. Canned laughter.

 

[ghost]

you don't have to be old to know that nearly everything is crap. you give us young'uns too little credit. i could diss some of the absolutely awful photographers (imo) some people said were their favorites, but then people would get mad.

 

[Gid]

Photography is no different to any other profession or art. For every "star" there are many equally good or even better who just never get the break that is needed to put them in the limelight. FWIW I don't think her photography is particularly good and the fact that she spends so much time to get those shots (with her army of helpers) makes them even less appealing. I would imagine that most of us here could get a couple of decent shots of Tom Cruise and family if we got to spend a couple of weeks with them.

There are plenty of working photographers who produce stunning portrait, wedding and event shots with very little prep time. This type of photography may not be what you like, but you have to take your hat off to those who make a success of it - it is hard work and you really do have to know your stuff.

My point? To become a "star" you need some talent (but you don't need to be the best) and a lot of luck (an industry mentor with good contacts can go a long way too).

 

[scottgee1]

BIG SNIP!

My point? To become a "star" you need some talent (but you don't need to be the best) and a lot of luck (an industry mentor with good contacts can go a long way too).

I quite agree with Gid on this point. Years (decades!) ago I attended a multi-day photo seminar. Each night Kodak sponsored a presentation by a well known photographer. As I scanned the list, I snorted with derision at one of the names. He was a VERY well known celeb photog whose success baffled me. Most of his published work would have found a home in the trash bin of my darkroom. Not wasting my evening on that I told myself.

On the night of Mr. X's presentation, I found that everyone else was going to it. Not wanting to go to the local pub on my own, I decided to make a quick visit to the hall. It was packed so I stood at the back. As I took my place, the fellow standing next to me offered his hand and said, "Hi, I'm Mr. X. What's your name?"

We proceeded to have a fine conversation during which he proved to be very friendly, interested in my experience and an excellent listener. It ended when he was introduced to the crowd and ran up to the stage.

I was left feeling flattered and realized that is why Mr. X was so successful. It wasn't about his photography, which was only average. It was about how he connected with people.

A wedding photog who I used to know summed up his experience by saying, "I'm not the world's best photographer, but I'm very easy to get along with and that's why people hire me."

Valuable lessons for me as an aspiring photographer. Now all I need is a personality transplant. 🙄

FWIW/ScottGee1

 

[Bike Tourist]

There is no objective standard of beauty or truth or what have you. Therefor, there will never be unanimity of opinion as to what is beautiful or truthful or what constitutes art. Even in instances where there seems to be concurence among people — let's say the "rule of thirds" or similar silliness — these are just arbitrary standards among fairly like minded people that are not at all universally held in all places and at all times.

Often, we find that what interests and intrigues us in a piece of art is that the artist went against all the "rules of composition" to create something unique and groundbreaking.

Once in a while, one starving artist among many is snatched from the jaws of poverty and singled out for all the world's riches and blessings. This is no fault of the artist.

It's called luck.

 

[x-ray]

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

I fully agree. A friend of mine assisted her and after the stories about how she treated her assistants I have no interest in her or her work.

 

[ghost]

i'd probably still like the photos, but what are these stories?

 

[Al Patterson]

I was speaking of myself, ghost....

I was speaking of myself, ghost....

you don't have to be old to know that nearly everything is crap. you give us young'uns too little credit. i could diss some of the absolutely awful photographers (imo) some people said were their favorites, but then people would get mad.

Hey, there are people my age who still think pop culture is the greatest, so don't think I was picking on you younguns. I was speaking of myself mostly. I should have been more clear.

 

[John Camp]

I think she's a great photographer for what she does, it's just that what she does isn't very interesting. And I suspect she feels that herself -- she occasionally tries to break out of it, like with the American music project. The problem with that was, she's so stylized that even the music shots came out looking like every other A.L. production.

But, for any given moment, she does good work. I also like the shot of John Belushi next to the highway, but my appreciation of the shot depends on knowing who John Belushi is, what he did and what happened to him. The next generation has already mostly forgotten about him -- he was a pop figure, not an enduring one. So what happens with the photgraph? Most of the meaning is drained away when the celebrity of the subject drains away.

I think most truly great photogaphs present an *impulse.* The specific meaning is put into it by the viewer. But A.L.'s photos are so obviously loaded to specific detailed and contemporary knowledge, that when you look at one, if you don't know who you're looking at, you're defeated. Oscar Wilde was a celebrity better known in his time than John Belushi or Whoopie Goldberg or Yoko Ono, yet if most people see a brilliant photograph of him now (and several exist) they can't find much meaning in them -- just another shot of a guy with long hair. That's be the fate of most of A.L's work -- though people *will* notice how well lighted they are.

JC

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I fully agree. A friend of mine assisted her and after the stories about how she treated her assistants I have no interest in her or her work.

You don't see a problem with dismissing someone's work because you've heard that they're a jerk?

 

[jlw]

I think she's a great photographer for what she does, it's just that what she does isn't very interesting.

Great concept. Can I use it on my next self-evaluation at work? "Yes, I concede that I'm a mediocre employee, but I do an excellent job of being mediocre."

 

[dll927]

Pop culture, almost by definition, changes with the times. And 'celebrity worship' is nothing new. When I was in high school fifty years ago, the girls all drooled over their movie magazines.

Leibowitz may be little more than a somewhat more sophisticated paparrazo. (That word sounds Italian, is there a feminine form of it???) I can't say I follow such stuff much, but there's no doubt there is a market for it.

I'm reminded of the old saw about music, "I don't go for stuff by dead guys". If that applies to photography, where does it leave Adams, several Westons, or for that matter, Julia Margaret Cameron?