Lou Reed - Photography and gear

[semordnilap]

walk on the wild side has to be his best KNOWN song, and it was written by him. in my mind his best song is i heard her call my name, but most can't even listen to it.

Ha! Me too.

but they did reach a much wider audience than they had with Cale. and isn't the whole point of being a performer to get people to watch you perform? no one wants to play to an empty room.

Of course no one wants to play to an empty room, but beyond that I think it depends on what you're after, frankly.

i despise Neil Young. and i won't even dignify the eagles question with an answer.

I like enough Neil Young. I also like that he's always doing something different. sorry about the eagles thing 😉

i will concede that without Cale we wouldn't even be discussing this band. my point in all of this(whether i articulated it well is debatable) is that Lou Reed was a talent in his own right before he ever met John Cale. Lou didn't have to have Cale around to make weird records, he already had! Cale just made them weirder. and that weirdness may be what you're calling their 'sound,' but i think Sterl, Moe and Lou were as important to it as John was.

I don't deny that Reed is no slouch–I understand what you're saying, and I think you understand my point, too. My initial post was somewhat intended to provoke, but I do have my opinions; I really dislike a lot of Lou Reed's solo work, and think he's overrated, whereas I think Cale is underrated. Again, though, there you have taste... most people I know wouldn't agree.

do i enjoy the reed/cale VU more than the reed/yule VU? without a doubt. if i never hear 'who loves the sun' again, it will be too soon.

Agreed!

or you can say that Lou Reed brought melody and lyrics to noise.

Yeah, we'll never be clear one way or another. We're not arguing black and white here.

no meanness perceived or intended either. at least we're on the same relative side.

I think we're not too far off at all.

sorry for boring everyone else with the minutiae of the early Velvet Undergound...

Me too... but isn't it fun? Would've been great to have seen some of those shows, but they were before my time.

 

[35mmdelux]

After Jimi Hendrix it all went downhill.

 

[Jaans]

Here here. I think endustry nailed it with that post. I was thinking exactly the same thing when I read this thread, but couldn't express it any better.

I have read a number of photography forums and there are some great creative photographers out there who can't get their work published because they lack either a) publishing contacts b) industry know how with regards to publicizing their work c) resources if they wanted to self publish.

Then in steps this unbelievably creative musician posturing as a photographer, who then proceeds to take the largest piece of cake. I could perhaps understand him getting one book published, but three?

My pet hate in the 'arts' if I could call it that, is when artists move from one genre to another whilst carrying the mistaken assumption that their talents in their area of expertise gives them creedence/value in their new endeavours of creativity.

I wonder if Seal will be using his contacts soon to get his dinner party work published. I often pictures this musician cum photographers entertaining their circle of friends with endelss accounts of their photographic endeavours while all the time the guests want to hear stories about their music.

By the way, isn't that where Seal's fascination began when he saw someone shooting a Noctilux at a candle lit dinner table and wondered how that was possible with available light and without a flash?

One actor who was a good photographer at the early stages of his career was Dennis Hopper. I have seen a number of his images in a magazine in London and online and he managed to capture the spirit of the late 60's early 70's with his drug/alcohol induced (drinking half a carton of beer/bottle of whiskey, inhaling three grams of cocaine a day habit) snapshots of stars and starlets lost in thought around Hollywood. However, taking into account Hopper's work, I myself have just moved the basis of my argument from music to acting.

I am quite sure that the great film director Kubrick has had a book published of his New York b@w in the 50's and 60's. But hell he is a director and an understanding of light is paramount in his industry. I myself found his images a little mundane, but contrary to my opinion he did win some awards and his images were of such relevance that they were published.

Interesting thread. I wonder if other members here have examples of actors/musicians who have had books published in the medium of photography??

 

[jvan01]

I guess Lou's doing ok in this economy!

True, he's a famous and legendary musician, but I didn't realize he was that well-heeled to buy an S2. Good for him.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

You mean Lou Reed does music too?

And I thought he was just a famous, well-known photographer.

 

[bob338]

'Noone is taking your space', however the more musicians cum photographers who decide to dabble in photographic books, then the more difficult it is for photographers with relevant projects pertainable to modern society to get their work published.

isn't getting a photo book published at all these days good for our hobby? who cares who the artist is? with print media disappearing, isn't it good that photo books are still being made?

no one has slagged andy warhol in this thread for getting into painting, photography, film making or print making. he was an illustrator.

i don't know what to make of Lou's work just yet. some of them look good and some don't, just like mine.

bob

 

[benlees]

[quote/]... the more musicians cum photographers who decide to dabble in photographic books, then the more difficult it is for photographers with relevant projects pertainable to modern society to get their work published.[/quote]


Your reasoning is questionable. Isn't there a chance that the opposite could happen? Profit from celebrity type books (assumed here to be better selling) could more easily fund the risks of unknowns?

Do people honestly think because a celebrity gets a book published that some poor person gets knocked off the end of some line?

What makes a project relevant, anyway?

 

[rdeleskie]

I agree with benlees. It is an erroneous presumption that because Lou Reed has published three books of photography it has prevented someone else from publishing theirs. Book publication does not work that way. It is quite likely the opposite in fact. Lou Reed's name will sell books. Not many, perhaps, but more than my name or probably yours! This means the publisher might (emphasize might) recoup their costs on the book, and possible turn a small profit. This allows them to take a chance on riskier projects (such as publishing the work of an unknown or less-well known photographer). Every book publisher I have met or known works this way. They love what they do, they want to take chances, but there are market realities. If a publisher honestly thinks they can make money off a lessor-known or unknown photographer's work within a realistic time-span, believe me, they will publish it (or one of their competitors will). But book publication and distribution is a much more expensive proposition than some might think.

There are many reasons why it may be harder than ever to get a book published (i.e., increased costs of production & distribution, difficulty is procuring shelf space at b&m stores, decreased sales due to so much "free" content being available on the internet, etc.). But Lou Reed isn't one of them.

As far as Lou Reed's "right" to be taken seriously as a photographer goes, I can certainly understand why people might feel a twinge (or more) of resentment towards him. I work in film & TV, and I get the same feeling whenever an actor, musician, celebrity, etc. decides they want to be a director. They haven't "paid their dues." But I can understand why their films get made. It's because the people putting up the money think they can make money. From that point on, the only fair thing to do is to judge the work by its own merits: how it communicates, how it makes us feel, its technical qualities, what it shows us about ourselves or the world around us. I've only seen four of Lou Reed's photos, so I can't really comment on the quality of his work. It's probably a lot better than mine, however.

BTW, Kubrick started out as a photographer for Look Magazine, in the late-1940s, before making a trio of documentary films (which he also shot). He certainly was no "celebrity photographer" or debutant. However, if he hadn't become famous as a film director, it's unlikely anyone would have bothered to publish his photos.

 

[Jaans]

isn't getting a photo book published at all these days good for our hobby? who cares who the artist is? with print media disappearing, isn't it good that photo books are still being made?

no one has slagged andy warhol in this thread for getting into painting, photography, film making or print making. he was an illustrator.

i don't know what to make of Lou's work just yet. some of them look good and some don't, just like mine.

bob

Fair point - it is good to see that photography books are still being made.

However, I don't know about you, but I do care about who the artist is. I think that you underestimate the audience. Many photographers, critics and perusers of photography in general are perhaps more discerning than your statement alludes to.

Also, I just wonder if Lou would have gotten his books published if he hadn't had his successful career in music to 'sell the idea'. How far he would have gone is anybodys guess.

By the way, noone has slagged Andy Warhol because the topic of the thread is Lou Reed. There remains a lot to be said about Pop Art and its main instigator. Warhol was quoted as saying that he would never have bought his own pieces as they had no artistic merit. Whether this extends to the worth of his photography, I don't know.

 

[Andy Kibber]

The man is abusing his celebrity rooted in another artform to get his pics published while respected photographers with a serious body of work are watching their books put on the back burner.

I'm not convinced publishing is the zero-sum game that you and others imply it is.




EDIT: I see benlees already made the same point. 🙂

 

[emraphoto]

"Then in steps this unbelievably creative musician posturing as a photographer"

who says he is posturing (besides yourself of course)? he takes photographs and has even produced a few books... doesn't that make him as much a photographer as most of us?

i don't hold Mr. Reed accountable for whether or not i can secure a book deal any more than i hold anne geddes or the folks who take pictures of kittens accountable.

 

[mw_uio]

"After Jimi Hendrix it all went downhill." 35mmdelux

Classic! 😎


Mark
Quito, EC

 

[35mmdelux]

The words I chose were not intended to make Reed out to be some kind of abject neophyte. However, I suppose in hindsight the word "tinkering" could be perceived as such. Your reply does bring up the as-yet-unanswered question of when a "hobby" becomes more than a hobby. I can't answer this question. Is Reed a professional photographer because he is published? If he weren't published, would he be an amateur? Where's the line between hobbyist and amateur? Is there a specific achievement that distinguishes these two semantic plateaus?

Friedlander writes that he photographs to see "what he gets." Does that qualify him as a hobbiest, amateur, pro? I have no dog in this race - just asking -

 

[bob338]

However, I don't know about you, but I do care about who the artist is. I think that you underestimate the audience. Many photographers, critics and perusers of photography in general are perhaps more discerning than your statement alludes to.

i care about it too. if i don't like the artist in the book, i don't buy it.

Also, I just wonder if Lou would have gotten his books published if he hadn't had his successful career in music to 'sell the idea'. How far he would have gone is anybodys guess.

who knows? how did Eggleston get his first book published? maybe someone would see something in Reed's work worth publishing.

By the way, noone has slagged Andy Warhol because the topic of the thread is Lou Reed. There remains a lot to be said about Pop Art and its main instigator. Warhol was quoted as saying that he would never have bought his own pieces as they had no artistic merit. Whether this extends to the worth of his photography, I don't know.

i only brought up Warhol because he did exactly what Reed is being criticized for, he went outside the bounds of what he was known for doing and found success. and he is closely related to Reed's career.

if Reed's book sells a lot of copies, it makes it possible for the publisher to take chances on other projects, like maybe one of ours.
this is similar to the Velvet's career; they were signed as an avant garde, experimental act while bands like the Cowsills were actually making money for the label. the Velvets didn't actually get out of debt to MGM until 1982! that's when the rest of the group sued Reed for songwriting royalties.

bob

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Other stars have published books of their photography. Ringo Starr, Roddy McDowell, Gina Lollobrigida, and many others if one cares to "Google". They will not be remembered as being professional photographers.

However, I'll always remember the cover of "Italia Mia" with Gina holding that Black Nikon F.

If you don't like the music, don't listen to it.
If you don't like the photographs, don't look at them.
If you don't like the book, don't buy it.