The Decline Of Fashion Photography

[softgrey]

http://slate.msn.com/features/010510_fashi...ide-show/01.htm

click here for a slide show and insightful look into the world of fashion photography...by karen lehrman...

 
Fashion photography is in fashion. This 1951 Vogue cover by Irving Penn recently sold for $28,750 at auction. It is indeed brilliant: Penn's masterful use of light, balance, and a spare composition create an understated elegance.

 

[Meg]

thanks for the link softie. that was a really interesting article. I didn't entirely agree with everything but thought there were some great points regarding models, fashion illustration and talking about not actually showing the clothes.

 

[softgrey]

no prob meg...that's been one of my pet peeves for a long time actually...fashion photographes that don't show the ...fashion!!!...i HATE that....

i mean...what's the point?!?!...i get the whole art thing...but if it's in a fashion magazine...then it's commercial and people don't buy fashion magazines for art..they go to galleries and museums for that...there is no reason why you can't inject a fashion photograph with artistic merit while still serving the purpose of a great fashion photograph...which is to show the fashion as beautifully and effectively as possible...

imho...

 

[tiffany]

Originally posted by softgrey@Nov 18 2004, 01:13 AM
there is no reason why you can't inject a fashion photograph with artistic merit while still serving the purpose of a great fashion photograph...which is to show the fashion as beautifully and effectively as possible...

[snapback]436896[/snapback]​

I agree
Overall, I can understand her point, it is easy to lose the artistic element in an editorial in favour of just focusing on the clothes, but it's also dissapointing when the designs themselves seem to be compromised in order to produce a wonderfully artistic photograph
I think there's a balance that's required between blandness and unabashed creativity in fashion, which very few photographers manage to achieve but when they do, it's wonderful (Paolo Roversi, being a great example )

 

[saturnine]

Thanks for posting this, Softgrey, an interesting read...

 

[purplelucrezia]

Originally posted by tiffany@Nov 18 2004, 02:13 AM
which very few photographers manage to achieve but when they do, it's wonderful (Paolo Roversi, being a great example )

[snapback]436914[/snapback]​

I was just going to mention him, but since you've done it- I'm happy here!

 

[As You Like It]

Cool article!

I agree, too, to a large extent.

However, I also think fashion has gone down the toilet since the 1960s, so what do I know?

 

[faust]

EXCELLENT!!! Thank you, softie. I agree with your comments entirely. Oust those egomaniacs!!!

 

[shiny]

Thanks for the links! Interesting, though I disagree with most of her points. I think her view of a "good" fashion photograph is very restrictive.

This one, for example :
"Fashion photography isn’t obligated to take readers into an elegant fantasyland, though that certainly was nice. But it should be different from photojournalism, and especially photojournalism concentrating on society’s dark side. "
People in poor neighborhoods often have a great sense of fashion, so why not show *their* world? Of course there's a risk that you may be using their creativity just to get some, um, street credibility. But that depends on the photographer's own ethics & talent. (BTW, to say that photojournalism concentrates on "society's dark side" isn't exactly true either).

And then she shows that photo of Maggie Rizer (I think it was shot by Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I've seen a big print of it in an exhibition, and it's gorgeous), saying that the model looks "stupid". Well that's a subjective opinion so I'm not even gonna try & argue with it. But I think she's missing the point. Models in the 50's always looked confident and cool. That's different today, and models are often shown in situations that they don't control (looking perplexed, angry, whatever). IMO, that doesn't make them more "stupid" than the people shown in 50's photos. The photographers simply catch them in moments where they're "in action", and not in "calm" moments. To me, that's a very positive change.

This being said, I agree that there's a lot of rubbish in today's fashion photography. But I think it's a matter of the photographer's talent & mood, not a matter of aestethic codes that have changed.

(sorry for my poor english, by the way )

 

[metal-on-metal]

Originally posted by softgrey@Nov 18 2004, 02:13 AM
no prob meg...that's been one of my pet peeves for a long time actually...fashion photographes that don't show the ...fashion!!!...i HATE that....

[snapback]436896[/snapback]​

Haha my favorite is when it's a closeup shot of some girl's face and they have the audacity to credit shoes, pants, and fragrance!

 

[faust]

I beg to differ

This one, for example :
"Fashion photography isn’t obligated to take readers into an elegant fantasyland, though that certainly was nice. But it should be different from photojournalism, and especially photojournalism concentrating on society’s dark side. "
People in poor neighborhoods often have a great sense of fashion, so why not show *their* world? Of course there's a risk that you may be using their creativity just to get some, um, street credibility. But that depends on the photographer's own ethics & talent. (BTW, to say that photojournalism concentrates on "society's dark side" isn't exactly true either).

People in poor neighborhoods don't have thousands of dollars to dress in the clothing that the editorials who USE them advertise. So the whole thing is entirely pretenscious and exploiting.

And then she shows that photo of Maggie Rizer (I think it was shot by Inez van Lamsweerde and Vinoodh Matadin, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I've seen a big print of it in an exhibition, and it's gorgeous), saying that the model looks "stupid". Well that's a subjective opinion so I'm not even gonna try & argue with it. But I think she's missing the point. Models in the 50's always looked confident and cool. That's different today, and models are often shown in situations that they don't control (looking perplexed, angry, whatever). IMO, that doesn't make them more "stupid" than the people shown in 50's photos. The photographers simply catch them in moments where they're "in action", and not in "calm" moments. To me, that's a very positive change.

Most models in most editorials today are made to do things that are entirely disrespectful to any human being (note the doggie style position of the photo posted with the model's hand reaching around her back as if she's about to pull the dress up). So, in essence, these models resemble whores at worst, or mindless puppets with no sense of self-respect at best.

(sorry for my poor english, by the way  )

Your English is excellent.

 

[faust]

Originally posted by metal-on-metal@Nov 18 2004, 08:36 AM
Haha my favorite is when it's a closeup shot of some girl's face and they have the audacity to credit shoes, pants, and fragrance!

[snapback]437092[/snapback]​

ditto

 

[metal-on-metal]

That said, I really don't like this slideshow. I don't know who this Karen Lehrman is but she sounds stupid. And like someone else said, too restrictive in her view of good photography. And some of her points are just so dumb. Mario Testino is a bad photographer because he was a waiter before doing photography? What an idiot. Mario's one of the most important and most successful photographers of our time and his work is almost always stellar.

I don't really get her point, and I'm not sure if she has one. If we're going to b*tch about shallow fashion photography, we might as well b*tch about shallow investigative reporting that has nothing to say.

 

[tiffany]

Originally posted by metal-on-metal@Nov 18 2004, 08:39 AM
And some of her points are just so dumb. Mario Testino is a bad photographer because he was a waiter before doing photography? What an idiot. Mario's one of the most important and most successful photographers of our time and his work is almost always stellar.

[snapback]437097[/snapback]​

I agree for the most part, I thought some of her comments (like the one related to Testino) were a little contrived

 

[Sloan]

I agree with a lot of what she says. I just think that much of the content (editorials/ads) in fashion magazines looks the same and that it is time for a fashion photograpy to move on!

Thanks for the article/slideshow softgrey!

 

[iluvjeisa]

Thanks for an interesting article.

I don't agree very much, though. To me, the best era in fashion photography was between 1966 and 1983, not prior to the 60s. I do enjoy Penn, Horvat and Horst - it's quite quite beautiful but I find Newton, Bourdin, von Wangenheim, Avedon and Elgort much more exciting, exhilirating, inspiring and amusing. I guess it depends on what you are looking for. I am looking for inspiration, fun, excitement and beauty.

I love that opening Penn photograph - it's pure genius - but the LaChapelle photo, while not quite at the same leve, is also rather good. There's some humor to it which I really appreciate. It doesn't seem to me that the writer of this thoughtful essay/media-article has included humor as a powerful factor in art.

To say that the aesthetics of the 60s were bland seems ignorant to me, I have to say. The 60s was the decade of sexual revolution - when skin could be bared and sex could be discussed. The writer does not seem to condone of sex as an ingredient in fashion photography, which seems boring. Sure, Sarah Moon's and Roversi's etheral photographs are good and that Prada campaign (p. 6) was nice, but surely we could use a bit of sex and fun in fashion photography as well, hein? That is something that has struck me about people who don't like Newton and Bourdin and those 'psycho-sexually challenged' photographers....isn't it obvious that they are FUN - that it's humorous, sexy, bizarre and beautiful at the same time?

I don't like heroin chic that much either, too barren and serious for me, but it had it's fun points, didn't it? I do totally agree with the writer (and Nick Knight) about realism and photography - it's pointless - you might as well look out the window. The purpose of photography and art - at least to me - is escapism!

The misogynism argument (p.20) seems strange - why would that photograph show how the photographer thinks that women should be - couldn't it be a reflexion on women's subordination? Or possibly, of course, it was just meant to be upsetting to feminists.

I must say it's a little amusing that the writer criticizes the image on p. 23 for that it does not show the clothes but at the same time praises the image on p. 24 because it's so beautiful - that pic sure does not show the clothes.

One thing, though, that I can definitely agree with, is the closing statements about the importance of the photographer's work rather than his/her social skills. There are too few people involved in the creation of art - be it fashion photography, design, painting, music....who care about the art alone rather than the social skills of the creator. It's sad...

 

[oanadobre]

Great article- thanks, softie! I especially agree with the problem regarding the anti-feminist twist in today photography. Indeed, most women in fashion editorials today don't inspire a lot of cleverness- they rather make me think: "Look! Another bimbo in fancy clothing!" And that may be unfair, since I'm sure a lot of them are actally bright, intelligent women - but with he misfortune of being portraided as the opposite

 

[clueless]

Originally posted by softgrey@Nov 18 2004, 02:13 AM
no prob meg...that's been one of my pet peeves for a long time actually...fashion photographes that don't show the ...fashion!!!...i HATE that....

i mean...what's the point?!?!...i get the whole art thing...but if it's in a fashion magazine...then it's commercial and people don't buy fashion magazines for art..they go to galleries and museums for that...there is no reason why you can't inject a fashion photograph with artistic merit while still serving the purpose of a great fashion photograph...which is to show the fashion as beautifully and effectively as possible...

imho...

[snapback]436896[/snapback]​

I couldn't agree more! I mean, fashion is meant to be fun, happy and make people smile! There is no need for photographers to get pretentious!

 

[Amélie]

i actually agree with a lot of her points...but then she screws it up with stupid things like Mario Testino was a waiter...well i work casual in a cafe, are you going to stop me from becoming a fashion photographer? hehe...

i also agree with most of the points about models...how can they use 16 year old and expect that sort of realism to come through in some photographs...i mean, you don't have to use people older than 20...but i mean sometimes u have to chose models on the basis of what they can convey instead of who fits the clothes best...

 

[FC5]

It is a very blinkered view of the fashion of fashion photography. Karen tries to compare the cost of a single print of Penn's against one of LaChapelle's but does not mention the change in day rate for the top photographers - and the fact that at the time of writing (this has floated round the net for a few years) one was still a relatively new photographer the other a legend able to look back over a substantial but finite career (what value any print after the death of the artist?).

In an essay on photography why is so much given to the typography? Sure the design plays a huge part in the end result but the subject is supposed to be the photography.

Lerhman claims that this decline has taken place over the last 30 years, yet she cites more good (in her eyes) photographers post 1970 than pre. Strange.

Also, given the accusations of misogyny, how convenient that there is no mention of the late 80's/early 90's phenomenon of the '...don't get out of bed for less than $30K.' supermodel, the names of which are still more recognizable to the general public than the photographers Lehrman mentions.

But the bit that really got me is the way she claims that Mario Testino is less of a photographer because he was once a waiter. So f*cking what???

However maybe she's having the last laugh - the fact that we are even bothering to discuss this suggests that what she lacks in subject knowledge she more than makes up for in ability to get a rise out of us.