The real thing

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
8:29 AM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
View My Gallery
It is a sad day when a friend dies.

Eric Meola last saw Clarence Clemons this year shortly after Clarence’s 69th birthday, at Clarence’s condo on Singer Island, Florida. Clarence made dinner for Eric and his wife, spaghetti and meatballs.

I got so sick of New York Times eulogies talking about the Born To Run cover of Clarence Clemons and Bruce Springsteen without crediting it to Eric that I put a response on the last article by Jon Pareles (who devotes his entire closing paragraph to the cover image).

This is what I wrote and was added to the responses on the web.

“The Born to Run album cover was photographed by Eric Meola, a major figure in contemporary photography, who went from enthusiastic fan to trusted friend of both men.”

A lot of people get to see your pictures. But you are involved with the real thing, your subjects.

Here is what Eric has to say about the shoot.

http://ericmeola.blogspot.com/2011/06/deconstructing-cover-of-born-to-run.html
 
Last edited:
I’m writing this just to move this particular thread’s title back to “Last Post” visibility. I think Eric’s essay is important reading for a lot of photographers.
 
Thanks. Huge fan of Bruce and love Eric's work with him from that album. He recently put out a book based on those sessions. It's very nice.
 
It's amazing how subjective one's perception is. Despite all of the accolades accorded to the cover photograph of "Born to Run," the image strikes me as a standard studio shot, requiring little more than reasonable technique to create. If the subjects seem to reveal real emotion, the capture of these feelings in the photograph is the result of the photographer's dumb luck, or so it seems to me.
 
gdmcclintock said:
It's amazing how subjective one's perception is. Despite all of the accolades accorded to the cover photograph of "Born to Run," the image strikes me as a standard studio shot, requiring little more than reasonable technique to create. If the subjects seem to reveal real emotion, the capture of these feelings in the photograph is the result of the photographer's dumb luck, or so it seems to me.
Click to expand...

howse your luck been lately?
 
gdmcclintock said:
the capture of these feelings in the photograph is the result of the photographer's dumb luck.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is not far from the truth. Only it's not dumb and it's not luck. It is something indefinable like intuition and it takes a lot of sensitivity, perception, and confidence. Once you reach a certain level, you learn to bank on "dumb luck" or that which cannot be explained; all good photographers do.
 
gdmcclintock said:
It's amazing how subjective one's perception is. Despite all of the accolades accorded to the cover photograph of "Born to Run," the image strikes me as a standard studio shot, requiring little more than reasonable technique to create. If the subjects seem to reveal real emotion, the capture of these feelings in the photograph is the result of the photographer's dumb luck, or so it seems to me.
Click to expand...

And that sums up why many people have so little respect for photographers. "Your camera takes really great pictures!" Really? How about the operator of the camera?
 
Again, perception is subjective. The sarcastic ad hominen remarks do not change the fact that one photographer's sensitive, intuitive portrait is another's commercial schlock.
 
The purpose of my post was not to be critical of Meola's body of work. Indeed, I think many of his photographs are beautiful. What I was noticing was the pure subjectivity of one's perception. The album cover in question was designed to communicate as much commercial information as possible: information about the music, musicians, production, with a glimpse into the "character" of the star via the portrait. This is an example of the art of commerce rather than the art of photography. Sensitivity and intuition on behalf of the photographer? Perhaps. Dumb luck as a commercial accomplishment? Absolutely.

We live in a world controlled to a greater or lesser degree by our perceptions of the images the media bombard us with incessantly. Art and commerce have become completely interchangeable. Just look at the "artistic" success of so many commercial fashion photographers. I may be an old fart out of step with the times, but I believe that art transcends commerce, and commerce is not art just because it is successful.
 
PKR said:
Being able to apply the rules of lighting and composition derived from painters working several hundred years ago doesn't make you a commercial hack in my view.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more! (Of course, I do not place Meola in the same camp as Penn or Avedon; perhaps I should be more open minded.)

Thank you for a very interesting conversation.
 
There is no doubt that those of us who do not rely on photography for our livelihood have the luxury of practicing photography for art's sake and can afford to be flippant, even arrogant, when confronted by commercial photography whether or not the photographer has enough talent and freedom to inject some measure of artistic vision into the sale of AMEX credit services or rock'n'roll music.
 
sonofdanang said:
...

And pardon my tone - I'm feeling militant.

...

Edit: I've just read Eric's essay and my heart is singing. I've put the album on and some faith is partially restored. There is that connection that, when found, is absolutely where it's at, Jack. The "real thing", indeed. Righteous.
Thank you again,
STA
Click to expand...

Militancy and faith are weapons of a true believer perhaps, but no basis for rational discussion.
 
Last edited:
"Fill 'em and bill 'em!" as they say on Wall Street about customers and their orders to buy or sell stock. For the cynical, commercial photography travels the same road.
 
At regular intervals, Eric Meola would close his studio, while continuing to pay his staff, and take off to do personal work. 2 of his 3 books, India and Last Places on Earth, were produced from pictures taken on these self assignments. Shooting for Last Places was often dangerous. And that was long before Eric was approached to continue the work for a book.

Eric did the pictures of Clarence Clemons and Bruce Springsteen because he was their friend, not because he was a commercial photographer who drew the assignment from some agency pool. He did them well, not because he was an advertising photographer, but, because he was a good photographer. Yes, he was a very successful advertising photographer. Before that he was Pete Turner’s assistant. And he also shot editorial material for Time Magazine. I can assure that you don’t do that because of the money.

Every prominent photographer that I know was an avid photographer before he became a professional to support his photography. A few have had money to begin with. A few managed to survive on grants. But the majority supported themselves by taking pictures for others.

If someone says that Don McCullin, Jim Nachtwey and all the rest of us who shot wars did it because we wanted the money or we were professionals just taking pictures we were told to take by our employers, they have a very strange perception of the world around them. If they think the big difference in photographers is whether you are an artist or a professional, I suggest they think about two other more realistic extremes - not so good and very good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom